07-24-2026, 08:07 AM
I would simply submit the following as your response to the operators evidence pack:
Quote:COMMENTS ON THE OPERATOR’S EVIDENCE
1. The operator has completely failed to answer the principal ground of appeal
The central ground of this appeal is that the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The operator has produced a 68-page evidence pack, including dozens of photographs of signs, but has not answered this point at all.
No quantity of signage photographs can cure the statutory defect. The question is not whether signs existed, whether CP Plus managed the site, or whether a parking charge was displayed. The question is whether the Notice to Keeper itself clearly identified the legal person who was the creditor.
It did not.
2. “GroupNexus” is not merely an unambiguous trading name of CP Plus Ltd
The NtK is prominently branded “GroupNexus” and contains a small-print reference to:
“CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”
That wording does not identify the creditor with the certainty required by paragraph 9(2)(h).
GroupNexus is not simply an informal label whose meaning can only be CP Plus Ltd. GroupNexus Limited is a separately incorporated legal entity:
CP Plus Limited
Company number: 02595379
GroupNexus Limited
Company number: 15560549
(Incorporated: 13 March 2024)
Those are two separate limited companies and therefore two separate legal persons.
The NtK does not state whether the creditor is:
(a) CP Plus Limited;
(b) GroupNexus Limited;
(c) Roadchef, as the landowner; or
(d) some other principal on whose behalf CP Plus is acting.
The words “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” do not resolve that ambiguity because a separate company called GroupNexus Limited now exists. A recipient seeing the prominent GroupNexus branding cannot know whether “GroupNexus” refers to the trading style asserted by CP Plus or to the separately incorporated company bearing that legal name.
Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the notice to “identify the creditor”. That requirement exists so the keeper knows precisely which legal person claims the alleged debt. The operator has failed to do so.
3. The previous POPLA decision is directly applicable
POPLA is specifically requested to retrieve and consider its recent decision:
Assessor: Paul E Walker
Case: ET6121/001
That appeal concerned the same CP Plus/GroupNexus creditor-identification defect. The assessor concluded:
“The operator’s information pack/response did not answer the appellant’s point under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(h) about identification of the creditor; it follows that I cannot be satisfied that the Notice to Keeper fully complied with PoFA. I allow the appeal.”
Precisely the same failure has occurred here.
The appellant expressly raised paragraph 9(2)(h) and explained the legal ambiguity caused by the existence of CP Plus Limited and the separately incorporated GroupNexus Limited. CP Plus has not addressed that argument, has not identified which company is the creditor, and has not explained why the NtK supposedly satisfies paragraph 9(2)(h).
The operator has simply ignored the issue.
There is no proper basis upon which this assessor could reach a different conclusion from Assessor Paul E Walker in case ET6121/001.
4. PoFA requires complete compliance, not approximate compliance
The operator repeatedly asserts that the charge was “issued under PoFA”. Merely saying that does not create keeper liability.
Schedule 4 is not a “mostly compliant”, “substantially compliant” or “close enough” regime. The statutory conditions are cumulative. The NtK must comply with every applicable mandatory requirement before liability can be transferred from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
Including wording derived from paragraph 9(2)(f) does not cure the failure to comply with paragraph 9(2)(h).
The operator may have reproduced one statutory warning, but that does not mean the remainder of the NtK is compliant. Failure to identify the creditor is sufficient by itself to prevent keeper liability from arising.
The driver has not been identified. The operator must therefore demonstrate complete compliance with Schedule 4. It has not done so.
5. The operator’s purported posting and delivery reasoning is defective
The operator states:
“We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 26/05/2026 and therefore deemed to be delivered on 28/05/2026, the contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued within PoFa time limits. We have included in Section C a copy of the Parking Charge which states the ‘This Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.’”
This does not establish compliance.
The operator has conflated the date printed on the NtK with the date on which the NtK was actually posted.
Paragraph 9(6) refers to presumed delivery on the second working day after the day on which the notice was posted. It does not say that delivery is automatically presumed two working days after whatever date the operator prints on the document.
The appellant put the operator to strict proof of posting. The operator has produced no certificate of posting, postal manifest, dispatch record, mailing audit trail or other evidence showing that this particular NtK entered the postal system on 26 May 2026.
Its statement that “the contrary has not been proven” does not relieve it of the need to establish the factual basis upon which it seeks to rely. Before the operator can rely upon a presumed delivery date calculated from the date of posting, it must establish what the date of posting actually was.
A self-generated “date of issue” is not, without more, proof of physical posting on that date.
Moreover, reproducing paragraph 9(2)(f) wording does nothing to answer the paragraph 9(2)(h) defect. It merely demonstrates that the operator included wording associated with one part of Schedule 4 while failing to comply with another mandatory part.
6. The last-minute landowner statement carries limited evidential weight and does not identify the creditor
The operator’s Evidence Checklist is dated 23 July 2026. The purported landowner witness statement at page 68 is also dated 23 July 2026, the same day the evidence pack was completed and submitted.
That timing strongly suggests that the statement was produced specifically for this POPLA appeal rather than being a contemporaneous record of any pre-existing authority.
The appellant does not allege fabrication. However, the assessor should attach limited weight to a short, generic statement apparently created on the day the evidence pack was assembled, particularly where the underlying contract has not been produced.
More importantly, the statement still does not answer the paragraph 9(2)(h) issue. It describes Roadchef as the landowner and CP Plus as the operator, but does not state which legal person is the creditor.
It therefore reinforces rather than resolves the uncertainty:
- Roadchef is described as the landowner;
- CP Plus Ltd is described as the operator;
- the NtK is prominently branded GroupNexus; and
- GroupNexus Limited is a separate incorporated company.
Nowhere does the NtK clearly identify which of those legal persons is entitled to recover the parking charge as creditor.
7. Conclusion
The driver has not been identified.
The operator can therefore pursue the appellant only if it proves complete compliance with Schedule 4. It has failed to identify the creditor, failed to answer the appellant’s paragraph 9(2)(h) ground, and failed to distinguish this case from the directly applicable decision of Assessor Paul E Walker in case ET6121/001.
The extensive signage evidence is irrelevant to that statutory failure. Photographs cannot retrospectively amend the NtK or identify a creditor that the NtK itself left uncertain.
The appeal must be allowed.
Finally, the operator has transposed two digits of the vehicle registration mark on the first page of its Evidence Checklist. While this is not the principal ground of appeal, it provides a further example of the lax processing and lack of care evident in the operator’s submission.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
