CP Plus Ltd - Nexus - Parking Charge Notice

BerriesRGr8

Hi @Coupon-mad, you've made me think and I went back to an older PCN that was received earlier in the year and that was a Notice to Hirer, so probably CP Plus used that backdoor "Lease Database" you mentioned.

For reference this was the older PCN I received that stated clearly it was the NTH (The charge was incorrect as the Hotel bungled the reg input and the hotel cancelled the charge for me) 

Coupon-mad

If your company hasn't appealed already, as you clearly have their permission to steer this case(!) I would appeal as the company and ask for proof that CP Plus obtained DVLA data in this case and to ask if this notice is meant to be a Notice to hirer because it is unclear why it was delayed.

BerriesRGr8

Coupon-mad said:

If your company hasn't appealed already, as you clearly have their permission to steer this case(!) I would appeal as the company and ask for proof that CP Plus obtained DVLA data in this case and to ask if this notice is meant to be a Notice to hirer because it is unclear why it was delayed.

Hi @Coupon-mad, the appeal was already made and following non-identification of the driver CP Plus rejected the appeal and provided the POPLA code, so the company should now appeal with POPLA and that's the point I started my thread asking for advise.

Is this a point I should raise in the POPLA appeal?

Coupon-mad

BerriesRGr8 said:

Is this a point I should raise in the POPLA appeal?

Yes. And the company wins.

The entire crux of the appeal is that the company is a corporate entity and cannot have been the driver, and the NTK was posted and arrived too late for keeper liability

EDIT: IF THE VEHICLE ISN'T LEASED, WHICH IT NOW TURNS OUT IT IS... 

The delay in posting the NTK is way past the 14 days set in para 9 of POFA and the notice received was not a Notice to Hirer and had no enclosures so it doesn't pass.

The alleged event occurred on 6 October 2025, but the NTK was not issued until 27 October 2025 and received 31 October 2025. 

BerriesRGr8

I've had confirmation back from the fleet team that the vehicle is leased and the company is the hirer and not the registered keeper as implied by the PCN issued by CP Plus.

As such I've drafted the below POPLA appeal:

Dear POPLA assessor,

On the 27th of October 2025, CP Plus Ltd. T/A GroupNexus (“GroupNexus”) issued a parking charge notice (PCN) highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…remained at this site longer than the maximum stay period or we have no record of a payment for parking being made to cover the full duration of your stay, …”.

Following the guidance on the PCN we used GroupNexus internal appeal system to highlight that their PCN has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), and as such they have forfeited their right to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper company.

Instead GroupNexus rejected the appeal and stated that their PCN was POFA complaint and they are holding the registered keeper liable for the charge, ”We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As full driver details have not been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.”

As the implied registered keeper and actual registered hirer we wish to refute the charge on the following grounds: The operator has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and as such POPLA should uphold this appeal against this PCN.

Below is a detailed summary of reasons why POPLA should uphold this appeal.

GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA:

1) GroupNexus have issued a “Notice to Keeper” which does not comply with paragraph 9 sub‑paragraph (5).
2) GroupNexus failed to deliver a “Notice to Hirer” that complies with paragraph 14.   
3) GroupNexus have outright lied about paragraph 9 (2)f) being in play and it would appear they have not used the Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event (KADOE) contract to obtain the Keeper’s data.

As the registered hirer we wish to put GroupNexus to strict proof that they obtained the Keeper’s data using the KADOE contract and to share their alleged request for vehicle details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and for GroupNexus to explain to POPLA why they have lied about liability, this looks like a cynical and deliberate attempt to mislead the keeper/hirer company.

1) GroupNexus have issued a “Notice to Keeper” which does not comply with paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (5)

• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under paragraph 9 (5) of POFA
• Paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the PCN for the purposes of paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

According to the PCN, the alleged event occurred on 6 October 2025, but the NTK was not issued until 27 October 2025 and received 31 October 2025. As the NTK was issued outside the required 14 days and therefore the PCN is not POFA compliant, GroupNexus have forfeited their right to hold the registered keeper liable.

2) GroupNexus failed to deliver a “Notice to Hirer” that complies with paragraph 14

·         In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer (NTH) in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance GroupNexus failed to issue the NTH.

·         The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

·         Paragraph 14 (2)a) specifies that in addition to delivering a NTH within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2):

o   i.e.(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

o   (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and

o   (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement,

o   together with a copy of the NTK.

 

·         GroupNexus did not provide a NTH or copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Through its failure to deliver a compliant NTH, GroupNexus has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle's hirer.

3) GroupNexus have outright lied about paragraph 9 (2)f) being in play

·         In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a Vehicle’s registered Keeper under paragraph 9(2)f), the Creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper ONLY if ALL the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 are met.

 

As GroupNexus has issued a NTK to the vehicle hirer and not a NTH or included any of the documents required in Paragraph 13 sub-paragraph (2) it is suggested GroupNexus did not obtain the Keeper’s data from the KADOE contract, which is the only route allowed to obtain said data under POFA, and that GroupNexus should explain to POPLA why they have deliberately lied and tried to use unsanctioned methods of obtaining Keeper information related to a leased vehicle.

Please let me know if I need to include any more information or if this is good enough to use.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Ah you will have to change it to a hirer appeal then. The POFA non-compliance is different and it's not about dates.

Search the forum for POPLA POFA Hirer