05-30-2026, 07:50 PM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2026, 08:08 PM by SamedayCourier.)
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by CP Plus Ltd t/as Group Nexus, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 18 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 26 May 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Roadchef Maidstone ME17 1SS.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 28 May 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
The driver drove into the services. As the driver arrived he observed signs at the entrance stating 3 hours free. After about 2 hrs 30 minutes, preparing to leave, the driver noticed signs saying 2 hours free. So the driver walked back to the entrance to photograph the 3 hours free sign. The driver could find no such sign. The driver had clearly misread the sign. At this point the driver downloaded the app to try and pay for the overstay, but the app would not allow a time in the past to be selected. The driver then left the service area.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I note that my letter is identical to that received in the "GroupNexus Moto Burton in Kendal" thread. I assume my route to follow is the same as outlined there?
I have this afternoon received a response by email. Some of it is the same, but there are also some seeming significant differences from the similar response seen in the Moto Kendal thread. I don't know the significance of these differences. Maybe just because it's a different site? They have made no attempt to request me to identify the driver as they did in the Moto Kendal case.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the requirement to pay for parking in excess of the free 2 hour period, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added. Should you appeal to POPLA, and your appeal is rejected for any reason, you will also lose your right to pay at the reduced rate.
Please find below the payment options:
Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn
By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784
By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton, NN1 9PN
----------
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.
Your POPLA reference number is (please note this reference is for use only when appealing to POPLA): ***********
Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.
The differences are not particularly helpful to CP Plus. In fact, this response arguably narrows their position.
They have now expressly confirmed that they are relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA. That is useful because POPLA should then be invited to assess the NtK strictly against PoFA. CP Plus cannot simply say “the charge was issued under Schedule 4” and thereby make the keeper liable. The statutory wording and timing requirements must actually be met.
The absence of any request to identify the driver is not fatal to them by itself at this stage, because they are not obliged to ask again in the rejection letter. The relevant issue is whether the original NtK contained the mandatory PoFA wording, especially:
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i): the invitation to the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if not the driver, to identify the driver and provide a serviceable address.
PoFA 9(2)(f): the mandatory keeper liability warning.
PoFA 9(2)(h): identification of the creditor.
PoFA 9(2)(a): specification of the relevant period of parking, not merely ANPR entry and exit times.
If the original NtK has the same CP Plus / GroupNexus ambiguity as @Foxy01, the 9(2)(h) creditor point remains important. Their rejection being signed “CP Plus Ltd” does not retrospectively cure a defective NtK. PoFA compliance has to be present in the notice itself.
The “clear signs” paragraph is just a bare assertion. It does not prove that the signs were actually visible, prominent, legible, correctly positioned, or that the specific terms relied upon were incorporated into any contract. That becomes a standard POPLA signage/landowner authority point, but the stronger point remains keeper liability if the driver has not been identified.
The sentence saying “your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance” is also telling. It suggests they have treated the appeal as mitigation, rather than addressing whether the keeper is legally liable. That should be used at POPLA: the appeal is not mitigation; it is a legal challenge to liability.
The “further costs may be added” wording is routine debt-recovery bluster. It is not the primary POPLA point, but it can be noted if necessary as part of the operator’s attempt to pressure payment despite unresolved statutory liability.
The POPLA wording is also misleadingly narrow. POPLA can consider whether the appellant is liable for the charge, which includes PoFA non-compliance, landowner authority, signage, contractual incorporation, and whether the operator has proved the charge is payable. It is not limited in the simplistic way CP Plus implies.
So the practical answer is: this is a template rejection, but the useful admission is that CP Plus is expressly relying on PoFA. The POPLA appeal should therefore force them onto strict proof of PoFA compliance. If the NtK has the same defects as Foxy01, the keeper liability point should be front and centre.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
Just to manage expectations, POPLA appeals are almost always unsuccessful — including cases where the Notice to Keeper clearly fails to meet all of the statutory requirements of POFA 2012.
POPLA assessors are not legally trained and routinely find in favour of the parking operator despite clear POFA deficiencies being presented to them.
Although POPLA is described as independent, it operates within a structure funded by the very operators whose decisions it reviews, which naturally limits the degree of true impartiality one can expect. It is, in effect, a classic case of “marking your own homework.”
A rejection should be expected and should not be taken as a reflection of the strength of your position. It does not meaningfully affect the likelihood of ultimately avoiding payment if you follow the excellent guidance provided on this forum.
The POPLA stage is simply one of the procedural steps you must complete on the way to the final outcome.......these parasites rely on most people bending over and saying "just pay it so it goes away".
I've been on the road a lot, so neglected this. With the help of your responses, the template in the Moto Burton in Kendal thread and AI, I've produced this POPLA appeal. Do I look good to go?
Introduction
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal against this Parking Charge Notice.
The driver has not been identified and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. The operator has expressly stated in its rejection letter dated 21 June 2026 that it is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the keeper liable. It may only do so if the Notice to Keeper fully complies with the strict statutory requirements of Schedule 4. It does not. Accordingly, no keeper liability arises and the appeal must be allowed.
I also reference the sealed order in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, claim number M4FC56Q6, dated 29 December 2025. Whilst not binding authority on this tribunal, it is directly relevant because the court expressly held that a claim against a keeper failed where the notice to keeper did not include the invitation to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e). It demonstrates that this is a real statutory defect with real legal consequences, not a matter that can properly be brushed aside by an operator.
1. No Keeper Liability: The Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)
Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the Notice to Keeper to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, and to invite the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
This Notice to Keeper (dated 26 May 2026) does not properly give that statutory invitation to the keeper. Instead, it refers vaguely to the driver being liable and seeks the driver’s details, but it completely fails to include the mandatory, explicit invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge in the form required by PoFA. Keeper liability is purely statutory; if the operator wishes to rely upon it, it must comply strictly with the exact wording of the statute. It has not done so.
This is a mandatory statutory condition, not an optional form of words. Because the Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(e), the operator has failed to establish any lawful right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
2. No Keeper Liability: The Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h)
Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the creditor. That means the specific legal person or entity said to be entitled to recover the parking charge.
This Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the creditor. It uses "GroupNexus" branding, refers in the footer to "CP Plus Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus", and elsewhere refers to "our Client’s property". This convoluted wording does not constitute clear identification of the creditor. It forces the recipient to guess or infer the alleged creditor’s identity rather than stating it expressly.
This defect is particularly serious. "GroupNexus" is no longer merely a harmless trading label used by CP Plus Limited. GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549) is now itself a separate, entirely distinct incorporated legal entity.
Accordingly, when this Notice to Keeper uses "GroupNexus" branding, references CP Plus Limited t/a GroupNexus in the footer, and simultaneously claims the location is "our Client’s property," the recipient is left entirely uncertain as to which legal person is allegedly the creditor. Is it CP Plus Limited? Is it GroupNexus Limited? Or is it an unnamed landowner principal? The Notice does not say. The operator may not cure this defect later by simple assertion in its rejection letter; PoFA compliance must be present within the original notice itself. Paragraph 9(2)(h) has been breached.
3. The Operator Has Not Shown that the Appellant Was the Driver
I am the registered keeper. I am appealing strictly in my capacity as the keeper. The driver has not been identified.
There is no lawful presumption in English law that the registered keeper was the driver at the material time, and I am under no obligation to name who was driving. The operator’s own rejection text confirms that it does not know who the driver was, which is why it explicitly attempted to invoke Schedule 4. Once that statutory reliance fails due to the flaws outlined above, the operator has no legal avenue left to pursue the keeper.
4. The Operator Has Not Shown a Valid "Period of Parking" as Required for Keeper Liability
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.
The operator’s Notice to Keeper relies purely on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera entry and exit timestamps (15:16 to 18:10 on 18 May 2026). Perimeter camera timestamps are not the same thing as a proved period of parking. They merely show the times a vehicle passed a camera boundary. They do not demonstrate when a vehicle was actually stationary in a bay, nor do they account for site circulation time, queuing, manoeuvring, locating a space, reading the signage, or safely exiting the service station.
The burden rests entirely on the operator to prove that the period relied upon is a true period of parking and not merely a record of vehicle motion. They have failed to provide this proof.
5. The Operator Has Not Shown that the Contractual Terms Were Clearly Brought to the Attention of the Driver
The operator asserts in its rejection letter that there are "clear signs at the entrance and throughout the site." This is a bare assertion, not evidence.
The operator is put to strict proof of the signage in place at Roadchef Maidstone on 18 May 2026. This must include clear, contemporaneous photographs and a comprehensive site map showing the location of each sign, the exact font sizing, the wording on those signs, and the specific route by which a driver would encounter them.
Furthermore, the operator’s rejection letter systematically mischaracterised my initial appeal as a plea for "mitigating circumstances." It was not. It was a formal legal challenge to statutory keeper liability. The generic stock rejection suggests the operator failed to look at the actual grounds raised, and POPLA is invited to require strict proof that a binding contract was ever successfully formed with the driver.
6. The Operator Has Not Shown that It Holds Valid Landowner Authority
The operator is put to strict proof of full, contemporaneous landowner authority for the Roadchef Maidstone ME17 1SS site on the material date.
A redacted agreement or a generic witness statement is insufficient unless it clearly proves that this specific operator was explicitly authorised by the actual landowner to issue parking charges and, crucially, to pursue legal debt recovery action in its own corporate name. This is particularly relevant given that the Notice to Keeper refers ambiguously to "our Client’s property," raising immediate questions about the chain of authority.
7. ANPR Evidence Is Insufficient Without Strict Proof of Accuracy and Calibration
Because the operator relies entirely on automated ANPR evidence, they are put to strict proof that the system was operating flawlessly on 18 May 2026. The operator must produce the relevant calibration logs, maintenance records, and time-synchronisation audits for the cameras at this location to prove the integrity of the timestamps provided.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons detailed above, the operator has failed to comply with the strict mechanisms required to trigger keeper liability under PoFA 2012, has failed to identify the creditor, and has failed to prove its baseline contractual case. I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and instructs GroupNexus to cancel the charge.
How about adding this on the the end of Section 4:
"The reliability of automated ANPR timestamps to dictate a 'period of parking' has been heavily challenged by consumer champion Which? in a national investigation published on 25th June 2026. The investigation details how these systems frequently suffer from 'double-dipping' glitches—where chapters fail to log a vehicle's departure and incorrectly merge separate visits into one continuous overstay. Crucially, Which? explicitly identified this operator, GroupNexus (operating as 'Nexus Group'), as having issued an erroneous overnight overstay charge to a motorist due to this exact automated system failure. The burden remains entirely on the operator to prove that the vehicle was continuously parked as alleged, rather than the victim of a documented system glitch."
And replacing section 7 with this:
"Because the operator relies entirely on automated ANPR evidence, they are put to strict proof that the system was operating flawlessly on 18 May 2026. A national independent investigation published by Which? on 25th June 2026 reveals that ANPR technology operates with an estimated 3% error rate, resulting in 2 million inaccurate reads per day in the UK.
According to industry experts interviewed in the investigation, these errors are frequently caused by inappropriate camera placement, high-angle camera misreads due to vehicle tailgating, and capturing vehicles that are simply manoeuvring near the entrance line of sight. Given that GroupNexus's systems have been publicly exposed by consumer investigators for these technical blind spots, a simple pair of automated timestamps cannot be accepted as definitive proof of a contract breach. POPLA is invited to require the operator to provide full calibration logs, maintenance records, and the unredacted audit trail for the cameras at this site on the material date to prove this read does not fall within the documented error margin."
