06-21-2026, 05:21 PM
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.
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
