03-23-2026, 06:00 PM
Hi @Foxy01. Thank you for completing the PCN details form. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper (NtK), I can see that it is not fully PoFA compliant as there is no invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge. This is a breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
There was a recent case (December 2025) where ParkingEye lost in court precisely because of this exact same failure. I show you the judgment below. Whilst not binding, or even persuasive, it does show that failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) means that they have not fully complied with PoFA and as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.
Further, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h) has not been complied with. The NtK does not identify the creditor. That defect is particularly acute because ‘GroupNexus’ is not merely a trading name used in branding, but is also the name of a separate incorporated company, GROUPNEXUS LIMITED (company no. 15560549), distinct from CP Plus Limited (company no. 02595379). A recipient of the notice is therefore left uncertain whether the alleged creditor is CP Plus Limited, GroupNexus Limited, or some unnamed client. PoFA requires the creditor to be identified clearly. It does not permit the keeper to be left to infer the creditor’s identity from branding or footer wording.
The practical effect of those failures is straightforward. If the driver is not identified, the operator can only pursue the Keeper by fully complying with PoFA. If the NtK does not comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise. In that situation they may only pursue the driver, and there is no obligation on the Keeper to name the driver.
So my suggestion is that your initial appeal should be kept short and should simply state that you are appealing as Keeper, that the driver has not been identified, that there is no obligation to name the driver, and that the NtK does not comply with PoFA, in particular paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h). The aim at this stage is not to over-elaborate, but to preserve the point clearly for later.
A simple appeal would be along these lines:
That is probably the cleanest way to deal with it at this stage. Once they reject and issue a POPLA code, we can elaborate.
There was a recent case (December 2025) where ParkingEye lost in court precisely because of this exact same failure. I show you the judgment below. Whilst not binding, or even persuasive, it does show that failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) means that they have not fully complied with PoFA and as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.
Further, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h) has not been complied with. The NtK does not identify the creditor. That defect is particularly acute because ‘GroupNexus’ is not merely a trading name used in branding, but is also the name of a separate incorporated company, GROUPNEXUS LIMITED (company no. 15560549), distinct from CP Plus Limited (company no. 02595379). A recipient of the notice is therefore left uncertain whether the alleged creditor is CP Plus Limited, GroupNexus Limited, or some unnamed client. PoFA requires the creditor to be identified clearly. It does not permit the keeper to be left to infer the creditor’s identity from branding or footer wording.
The practical effect of those failures is straightforward. If the driver is not identified, the operator can only pursue the Keeper by fully complying with PoFA. If the NtK does not comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise. In that situation they may only pursue the driver, and there is no obligation on the Keeper to name the driver.
So my suggestion is that your initial appeal should be kept short and should simply state that you are appealing as Keeper, that the driver has not been identified, that there is no obligation to name the driver, and that the NtK does not comply with PoFA, in particular paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h). The aim at this stage is not to over-elaborate, but to preserve the point clearly for later.
A simple appeal would be along these lines:
Quote:I appeal this Parking Charge Notice [PCN reference number] as the registered keeper.
The driver has not been identified and I am under no obligation to name the driver.
If you intend to hold the keeper liable, you must fully comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This Notice to Keeper does not do so. In particular, it does not properly comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), and it does not correctly identify the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h).
As you have not met the statutory conditions required to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, there is no keeper liability in this matter.
I therefore require you to cancel the Parking Charge Notice or issue the relevant POPLA code for independent appeal.
That is probably the cleanest way to deal with it at this stage. Once they reject and issue a POPLA code, we can elaborate.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
