GroupNexus Moto Burton in Kendal

[b789]

If they don't withdraw, come back when you receive their evidence pack and any excuses and any rebuttal.

[Foxy01]

POPLA Operator response

RESPONSE

[b789]

That’s good. You have 7 days to respond. I will get on to this later today and get back to you with a suitable response.

Remember, it is only POPLA and the assessors are not legally trained. There is little consistency between them and if they reject the appeal, their decision is not binding on you.

[Brenda_R2]

That’s good. You have 7 days to respond. I will get on to this later today and get back to you with a suitable response.

Remember, it is only POPLA and the assessors are not legally trained. There is little consistency between them and if they reject the appeal, their decision is not binding on you.

Listen to @b789

Operators pay a fee (around £30) each time a motorist appeals.

If POPLA were to uphold every appeal, operators would be paying to lose money.

The entire system exists only because operators fund it.

That creates a financial dependency, even if POPLA’s adjudicators pretend to be impartial.

This is the same reason you wouldn’t call a referee “independent” if one of the football clubs paid his wages.

[b789]

The operator’s evidence pack does not answer the appeal grounds.

First, the operator merely asserts PoFA compliance. It does not demonstrate it. The issue is not whether the operator says the charge was issued under Schedule 4, but whether the Notice to Keeper actually complies with Schedule 4. It does not.

On paragraph 9(2)(e), the operator has still failed to show that the Notice to Keeper contains the mandatory invitation to the keeper in the form required by PoFA. The evidence pack simply repeats the operator’s assertion that keeper liability applies. That is insufficient. The appellant relies on the wording of the Notice itself and on the attached county court order in ParkingEye v Ghansah, which demonstrates that failure to include the required invitation under paragraph 9(2)(e) is a fatal defect where keeper liability is being asserted. The operator has not engaged with that point at all.

On paragraph 9(2)(h), the operator has still failed to identify the creditor clearly. The Notice to Keeper and signage use GroupNexus branding, refer to CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus, and the main sign states that the site is managed and operated on behalf of Moto Hospitality Ltd. That wording leaves the position unclear. POPLA is invited to note that the statutory requirement is to identify the creditor, not to leave the recipient to infer it from branding, trading styles or references to a principal.

A so-called landowner “witness statement” is not the same thing as the contemporaneous contract itself. At POPLA stage, operators often try to get away with a generic letter or statement saying “we have authority”, but that is only a bare assertion unless it actually proves the necessary facts. Mere assertions in the unheaded supposed witness statement are not strict proof.

Finally, the operator has mischaracterised the appeal as if it were based on mitigation. It was not. The appeal was a legal challenge to keeper liability under PoFA. The evidence pack does not address that challenge properly.

In those circumstances, the operator has failed to rebut the appeal, and POPLA will be invited to allow it.

You can just copy and paste the following into the response text webform box:

The operator’s evidence does not rebut the appeal as made. It simply asserts that the Notice to Keeper is compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and then invites POPLA to accept that assertion without properly addressing the specific statutory defects raised by the appellant. That is not a proper rebuttal.

The issue for POPLA is not whether the operator says it issued the Parking Charge under Schedule 4. The issue is whether the Notice to Keeper actually complies with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4. Keeper liability is purely statutory. It does not arise through substantial compliance, broad compliance, or something the operator considers close enough. It arises only if every mandatory condition is met. If any mandatory requirement is not complied with, keeper liability does not arise.

The operator has failed to rebut the appellant’s point under 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 provide the driver’s details and pass the notice to the driver. That wording is mandatory. It is not optional and it is not something that can be loosely approximated.

The Notice to Keeper relied upon by the operator does not properly give that required invitation to the keeper to pay. Instead, it refers to the driver being liable and seeks the driver’s details. That is not the same thing. The operator’s evidence does not explain how the wording used is said to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e). It merely repeats the assertion that the notice was issued under Schedule 4 and that the keeper is therefore liable. That is not the test. The question for POPLA is not whether the operator says it relied upon PoFA. The question is whether the Notice to Keeper actually complies with PoFA. On this point it does not. POPLA is therefore respectfully invited to address this issue directly and expressly. If the Notice to Keeper does not contain the statutory invitation to the keeper in the form required by paragraph 9(2)(e), keeper liability does not arise.

The operator has also failed to rebut the appellant’s point under paragraph 9(2)(h). Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the creditor clearly. That means the actual legal person said to be entitled to recover the parking charge, and that must be stated clearly in the Notice to Keeper itself.

The operator may seek to say that CP Plus Limited can trade as “GroupNexus”. That misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether CP Plus Limited may use “GroupNexus” as branding. The issue is whether the Notice to Keeper clearly identifies the creditor without ambiguity.

It does not.

CP Plus Limited is one legal entity, company number 02595379. GroupNexus Limited is another legal entity, company number 15560549, incorporated on 13 March 2024. They are separate companies. That matters. Once GroupNexus Limited existed as its own incorporated company, the word “GroupNexus” no longer pointed to only one possible legal person. From that point onwards, the use of “GroupNexus” in a Notice to Keeper became legally ambiguous unless the notice made crystal clear which company was said to be the creditor. Companies House records show both entities exist separately and are active. ([Find and Update Company Information][1])

This Notice to Keeper does not do that. It uses GroupNexus branding, refers to CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus, and the operator’s own signage says the site is managed and operated on behalf of Moto Hospitality Ltd by CP Plus Ltd, T/A GroupNexus. That leaves multiple legal entities in play. The recipient is left to guess whether the creditor is said to be CP Plus Limited, GroupNexus Limited, or Moto Hospitality Ltd. The operator’s own sign wording demonstrates that ambiguity.

That is precisely what paragraph 9(2)(h) is designed to prevent. The creditor must be identified clearly, not left to implication, branding, trading style or guesswork. Even if CP Plus Limited is entitled to trade as “GroupNexus”, that does not rescue this Notice to Keeper. Once GroupNexus Limited existed as a separate company, the use of “GroupNexus” without clear identification of the actual creditor became materially ambiguous. The Notice to Keeper had to tell the keeper, clearly and unambiguously, which legal entity was claiming to be entitled to recover the charge. It failed to do so. POPLA is therefore respectfully invited to address this issue directly and expressly. If the Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the creditor, keeper liability does not arise.

The operator’s attempt to sweep those PoFA defects aside with a bare assertion that the Notice to Keeper is compliant is not a rebuttal. POPLA is asked not to dispose of these issues with a bare conclusion that the Notice to Keeper is “PoFA compliant”. The appeal raises two specific statutory defects under paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h). Each requires express consideration. Unless the operator can show full compliance with each mandatory element of Schedule 4, it cannot recover the charge from the keeper.

The operator’s response on landowner authority is also misconceived and should be rejected. The burden is not on the appellant to prove a negative. It is for the operator, as the party asserting contractual standing, to produce proper evidence that it had authority from the landowner on the material date to operate the site, issue parking charges and, if asserted, pursue them in its own name. The operator’s attempt to reverse that burden, and to suggest that the appellant should have gone to the BPA to disprove authority, is unsustainable.

The operator relies on a bare witness statement rather than the contemporaneous contract itself. That is not strict proof of standing. It is especially inadequate where the document is not on headed paper, merely bears the name and job title of Shaun Stanley, “Head of Commercial & Fuel”, and does not, on its face, establish that the signatory had authority to make binding statements on behalf of the landowner as to the scope of the operator’s contractual rights, the land covered, or any right to issue charges and pursue them in its own name. A bare witness statement is not the contract and should not be treated as if it were.

Nor is the existence of signage or equipment proof of any subsisting contract. Signs can remain in place after contracts have expired, been varied, been terminated or otherwise ceased to confer the rights asserted. The presence of signs proves only that signs were present. It does not prove the existence of any subsisting contract on the material date, nor the scope of any rights allegedly granted. The operator must prove standing by proper contemporaneous contractual evidence, not by assertion, not by inference from signage, and not by inviting POPLA to assume that authority must have existed because enforcement apparatus was present on site.

This point is made even more important by the operator’s own sign wording, which states that the site is managed and operated on behalf of Moto Hospitality Ltd by CP Plus Ltd, T/A GroupNexus. That wording itself suggests an agency-style arrangement and reinforces the need for proper contractual proof of the operator’s standing and of the identity of the creditor.

The operator also mischaracterises the appeal as if it were about mitigation. It is not. The appeal is a legal challenge to keeper liability and standing. Assertions about signage, grace periods, or lack of mitigation do not answer the statutory defects identified in the Notice to Keeper, nor do they prove landowner authority.

In short, the operator has not rebutted the appeal as made. It has not shown compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e). It has not shown compliance with paragraph 9(2)(h). It has not provided proper contractual evidence of standing. It has merely asserted conclusions that it has not proved. POPLA is therefore respectfully invited to address these issues directly and expressly. If the operator cannot show full compliance with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4, and cannot show proper standing by contemporaneous contractual evidence, the appeal must be allowed.

The appellant also respectfully notes that these are questions of statutory and contractual compliance, not matters of discretion. If POPLA declines to engage with those issues properly, any adverse decision will not determine the matter. POPLA’s decision is not binding on the appellant, who will simply leave the operator to prove its case before a court, where these legal issues can be examined properly and impartially.