Group Nexus PCN, keeper, but not driver. Two car parks adjacent with shared entrance.

skuther

PCN received from Group Nexus.

Date of parking: 18/11/2025 - allegedly between 11:43-15:14 (3hr 30min)

Date of issue of PCN: 25/11/25

I am keeper.

I was NOT driving (easy to prove if needed. I usually drive a different car + was working in a different town that day).

The site in question has TWO car parks adjacent.

One is part of shopping centre - and is run by Group Nexus. They have recently brought in a 3hr limit.

The other is owned by a multi-GP practice health centre who absolutely does not have a contract with Group Nexus. There are no restrictions to this car park.

There is a shared entrance from the main road.

Group Nexus is acting like the whole car park is theirs and their cameras only monitor cars coming in and out from the main road.

All cars in either car park have been receiving PCNs recently.

I actually don't know for certain where the driver parked - but I have previously told them to use the health centre car park as that is the one affiliated with my workplace and I have permission from the land owner to use it.

If this one was used then Group Nexus have no authority to be issuing PCNs at all.

skuther

here is PCN:

skuther

Here is the TERRIBLE entrance signage:

skuther

My "complaint" / appeal to Group nexus went as follows:

This is a COMPLAINT (which should also be treated as an appeal as per BPA code of conduct).
1. am the registered keeper of the car. I am aware that Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, SCHEDULE 4 give you right to contact the keeper.
2. I own more than one car. I do not normally drive this car. I was NOT the driver. I was at work in a different town at the time of the alledged event. This is easily provable.
3. There are several possible people who might be the driver.
4. I been to this car park in the past - it certainly did not have any 3hour limit at the time. Is this a new initiative?
5. I have now been to visit the car park in question to understand the situation and collect evidence.
6. I am aware of the 2015 Beavis case, and the private parking industries selective application of it. Mr Beavis fully admitted he was aware of the (well above average by parking company standards) large clear orange sign but did not feel it applied to him. The supreme court felt otherwise. I also aware that set of circumstances is very different.
7. I note the entrance signage (copy attached) fails to state private land, or a time limit (looks like it has been covered over!), or which parking company is involved, or that you are BPA members. So various breechs of BPA code of conduct 3.1 + 3.1.2.
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring
8. I note the photos provided seem to show a car entering and leaving a communal access road (which has been in use for over 20years so don't try to say otherwise) to TWO private car parks. One car park appears to be owned by the Castle Dene shopping centre, the other car park is the property of Peterlee Health centre. You have not provided any photos to say where the car was parked and so no evidence that the car was parked in the car park you manage.
Certainly I would expect other drivers of my car to use the Health Centre car park (given my work connections to there and prior permission to park there from the landowner).
To avoid confusion I have also attached a annotated satelite highlighting this.
Also I note you are also in breech of BPA code of conduct "3.2. Signs and surface markings – adjoining parking premises"
"Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying."

skuther

Their cut and paste generic response which does not acknowledge (let alone respond to) my points was:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.

The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.

Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the 3 hours max stay, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.

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.

In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.

skuther

I can confirm that I (As keeper) was certainly not aware of any contract terms or 3hr limit.

I am certain that the driver was also not aware of this.

Just to be clear I also believe the car was actually parked on the peterlee health centre car park site - and have seen no evidence to the contrary.

I have heard multiple reports that staff and patients are getting PCNs for using the health centre car park - even through group nexus have not legal authority to do this.

I have spoke to the management team at the health centre and confirmed the above.

I am deeply concerned about Group Nexus's dodgy (possibly illegal?) behaviour and I am wondering what the best way to esclate this this. (DVLA, loca MP, BPA, etc?)

For (?)fun and test of concept I would actually like to try a POPLA appeal - never done one before.

Group Nexus only argument to date (according to health centre) is that they claim to own the shared access road. Even if this is true that road has been in use, as shared access road (only way in!) to peterlee health centre since 1955! - so common law rules on easement (right of way) would be relevant.

The health centre are considering getting legal advice - but they are a bit weary. 

Le_Kirk

skuther said:

To avoid confusion I have also attached an annotated satelite satellite highlighting this.

Also, I note you are also in breech breach of BPA code of conduct "3.2. Signs and surface markings – adjoining parking premises"

Not sure what a satellite is in this context.

Car1980

Waste of time going to Popla because they'll just submit all the other signs on the site. Even though they're all terrible and have a 3 sticker applied to every one, which is bizarrely condensed to the same width as the 1 underneath.

Just ignore and go through the usual DCB Legal motions

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6529959/group-nexus-dcb-legal-court-claim-at-ws-stage

You seem to be up for a fight though, so your best bet is getting to Witness Statement stage at court, producing a massive dossier, and then pursuing for cost due to an unreasonably late discontinuance.

skuther

Thanks for comments everyone. The signage is terrible - but that is secondary.

My main point is that there is no land owner authority.

There is no evidence that parking has taken place on their land - only that a car has been along a shared access road (highlighted with the red line below). Here is the satelite Satellite view image to demonstrate. Thanks to Le_Kirk for pointing out my typos above.

The cameras have only been put in recently - and eveyone who goes down it is now being assumed to be "parking" in the shopping centre, even though another car park is there also.

The NHS health centre car park (circled in red) is privately owned by the health centre NOT the shopping centre. I have confirmed that the health centre don't have a contract with Group Nexus.

The shared access road has been in continuous use to the health centre since the 1950s! - at least 60years - which would satisfy Easement (Right of way) by prescription law (which is over 20years) even if the access road is privately owned.

I would quite like to go down the POPLA route, if only so I can the evidence pack from them to share with the NHS Health Centre to help launch their legal action against the shopping centre / Group Nexus - for trying to extort money out of NHS staff and patients.

Coupon-mad

Good idea.

Get evidence for the Health Centre.

They need to register their easement and issue an injunction I think.

All their legal costs can likely be reclaimed from the 'servient landowner' of the road, who has allegedly committed a derogation of grant & harassed their staff and vulnerable patients.

Damages they could seek could be pretty high. They need a property law solicitor to quash this interference and seek costs & damages.

skuther

So I have a question about POPLA submission.

I have written an appropriately long (11 pages in microsoft word, font size 12) POPLA appeal: with photos, annotated satellite views, and large chunks of Coupon-Mad's POPLA guide including appropriate bits from Landowner Authority and Signage.

I even have HM Land Registry plans confirming parking spaces owned by health centre and not shopping centre.

The POPLA webform seems very restrictive - can I just email to them, or do I do I use their webform and eg. mark it as "other" and just upload it?

Thanks