07-03-2026, 08:46 PM
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.
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.
