Group Nexus / CP Plus Ltd PCN ...already appealed

piggypower

Coupon-mad said:

No it hasn't become expensive as you'll never have to pay this. POPLA doesn't matter but give it a go. Nobody pays when they lose.

Photos...taken around 7pm, with a clear blue sky (sun starting to set) so no need for additional lighting to see the signs. Headlights (dipped of course) would not reach high enough for the entry signs to be seen clearly.

Which is what you say in your POPLA Comments. Plus anything else you spot about the signs or their other evidence.

e.g. is the £100 in very large bold font compared to the rest of the wording?

...show us the landowner statements.

It is normal to see 50 or more pages in a POPLA response. They haven't written all that specially to oppose you; it's a template with odd sentences tweaked then a batch of pics they prepared earlier for that site.

thankyou for your replies. Its been a long stressful week and I came back to their "evidence" and just felt a bit dejected by it. I did think the "landowner evidence" was weak, I will try and attach it now. the total pages for their evidence was 66 pages!!... I'll try and attach below...

piggypower

here attached I think...

piggypower

1505grandad said:

If the some/all photos they have used as evidence are not date and time stamped relevant to the parking event  -  state that too.

indeed. they are all dated and time stamped, but from 19th September 2024, ranging from 6:45pm to 7:15pm

Castle

Two so called "Witness statements", both of which fail to mention the actual location.

Even more fun is that the Witness claims that the "authority" was in force when the PCN was issued, despite both statements being dated in 2023 and the PCN was issued in summer of 2025.

piggypower

Castle said:

Two so called "Witness statements", both of which fail to mention the actual location.

Even more fun is that the Witness claims that the "authority" was in force when the PCN was issued, despite both statements being dated in 2023 and the PCN was issued in summer of 2025.

there was two more pages following the second "witness statement" which had a huge list of ALL sites and the site in question was highlighted. However... maybe I am wrong here... but these witness statements (from 2023) are not what I requested which was the unredacted contract. After I made this statement in my evidence, I then used the paragraph;

"Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement."

which CP PLus obviously didnt read

Coupon-mad

They didn't need to.

POPLA accept WS so I would leave that alone completely and ONLY comment concisely on the one element that could win: their evidence omits to show what the signs look like in darkness. There's no evidence of direct or even ambient lighting and dipped headlights do not point nine feet up.

piggypower

Coupon-mad said:

They didn't need to.

POPLA accept WS so I would leave that alone completely and ONLY comment concisely on the one element that could win: their evidence omits to show what the signs look like in darkness. There's no evidence of direct or even ambient lighting and dipped headlights do not point nine feet up.

even though its evidence for a different PCN in 2023?? who is to say they still have a legal contract?

piggypower

update on this... my appeal was denied by POPLA. Decision in the decisions thread

POPLA Decisions - Page 486 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Coupon-mad

Ignore that.

doubledotcom

FYI, no recently issued NtK by GroupNexus is PoFA compliant because the creditor is not identified. PoFA para 9(2)(h) says that the Notice MUST identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

All their NtKs fail PoFA 9(2)(h) because they don't identify the “creditor”. Their notices are branded “GroupNexus” and say that is a trading name of CP Plus Ltd, yet since March 2024 “GroupNexus Ltd” exists as a separate legal entity. Their NtKs do not state which legal person is the creditor: CP Plus Ltd (02595379) or GroupNexus Ltd (15560549). Ambiguity between two distinct companies (same directors, same address) is a material failure of PoFA 9(2)(h).

If they cannot even identify who the creditor is, keeper liability cannot arise.