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

BerriesRGr8

Some added intrigue...

The original email where Nexus rejected the appeal and provided the POPLA code has vanished from my inbox. As POPLA appeal hadn't been filed, it appears they recalled the email. New lows.

Any case HAPPY CHRISTMAS to all!

BerriesRGr8

Just checking if this is a sufficient appeal for POPLA:

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’s 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 vehicle’s 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 failed to deliver a “Notice to Hirer” that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA – paragraph 14.
2) GroupNexus have issued a “Notice to Keeper” which does not comply with paragraph 9 sub‑paragraph (5).
3) No evidence of Landowner Authority – GroupNexus is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice    
4) 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 vehicle’s 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 company who are the vehicle’s hirer.

1) 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.

2) 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.

 3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - GroupNexus is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

·         As GroupNexus does not have proprietary interest in the land then we require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

·         The contract and any “Site agreement” or “User Manual” setting out details - such as any “genuine customer” or “genuine resident” exemptions or any site occupier's “right of veto” charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what GroupNexus is authorised to do, and when/where.

·         It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

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 we suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and we put GroupNexus to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4) 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’s 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.

We therefore request that you consider this appeal and uphold it. And to put a stop to this unfair pursuit for payment from the vehicle’s hirer, by attempting to use a non-compliant parking charge notice based on the reasons mentioned above.

 

Yours sincerely,

Coupon-mad

BerriesRGr8 said:

Some added intrigue...

The original email where Nexus rejected the appeal and provided the POPLA code has vanished from my inbox. As POPLA appeal hadn't been filed, it appears they recalled the email. New lows.

Any case HAPPY CHRISTMAS to all!

After how many days did they remove it?

Did you note the POPLA code?

BerriesRGr8

TBH not sure. I received their email rejecting my appeal with the POPLA code on the 7th of December. Been out and about working and as I finished for Christmas break wanted to finish the appeal for POPLA but couldn't find their email.

Thankfully I took a screenshot to post here on the forum. So luckily I still have the original version with the POPLA code. Just wanted to check if the updated appeal is sufficient for POPLA purposes.

Thanks again for all the guidance and advice!