Airport charge notice help please

Fruitcake

As above, whilst it may not do any harm by putting it in, you will be wasting your time as PPCs do not take mitigation into account.

Redx

if you do put it in , triple check that wording as mistakes now are bad later

it certainly wont harm the case, if worded correctly, but there is no profit in cancellations , so mitigation at this point wont work

but it may help in any possible future court case

Aligoose

Hi
Just an update for the charge notice mentioned above.

As expected I received what I expect is a standardised rejection letter from VCS giving me the options of paying the charge or appealing to the IAS. They don't refer to my particular circumstances (mitigation mentioned in addition to the standard template) and they claim that I have stated that I was not the driver when in fact I have not confirmed who was driving at all and have referred to myself as the keeper.

I've read various threads and understand from the newbie post #3 that the general consensus is to not bother with the IAS appeal but I also came across a thread about a successful appeal at JLA where there has been incorrect procedures followed with the notice to hirer.

The relevant entry from that thread is copied below..

IAS decision:

"First I apologise to both parties for the delay in responding to this appeal, which has been in part due to an issue I have not dealt with before, and which I have considered several times.

I have not responded to all of the grounds of appeal raised, partly because most of the arguments raised are spurious and without merit, but mainly because I am allowing the appeal on a specific point, which means the other points are no longer relevant.

The Appellant raises the relevant periods within PoFA, and claims the Operator has failed to send a notice to keeper within the required time periods. I do not agree with them. However, having raised deadlines within PoFA, albeit incorrectly, I have considered those deadlines, and consider that the Operator has failed to comply, just not in the specific manner suggested by the Appellant.

This is a hire vehicle and the position in relation to such vehicles is covered by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule IV of Po FA. The start point is that the Operator should seek information from the hire company. Should the hire company wish to avoid liability for the unpaid parking charges they should provide the following:-

(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;

(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

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

From the appeal correspondence it appears that none of this has been done. This is important because Parliament clearly had in mind that the hirer of a vehicle should not be held responsible for unpaid parking charges, unless there was an agreement, signed by the hirer, accepting responsibility for those charges during the period of hire.

Paragraph 14 goes on to explain the conditions to be met before the creditor, in this case the Operator, is ab le to claim unpaid charges from the hirer. The conditions are:-

(a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

(c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

The relevant period is 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor. Again I can see no evidence these requirements have been satisfied, quite the contrary. The initial response from [EMPLOYER LEASING COMPANY NAME] is received on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 9 DAYS], and the notice to [EMPLOYER NAME] sent on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 27 DAYS], within the time allowed. The response from [EMPLOYER NAME] is received on [DATE OF “PARKING” + 39 DAYS]. The next day would be the [DATE OF “PARKING” + 40 DAYS], and 21 days from this day would be [DATE OF “PARKING” + 61 DAYS]. The notice to the Appellant was sent on the [DATE OF “PARKING” + 62 DAYS] and there is no evidence regarding method of service.

It may be that the relationship between the [EMPLOYER NAME] and the Appellant is not one of hire, in which case arguably the last point regarding the above deadlines is not relevant. I do not know as there is no evidence from the [EMPLOYER NAME] to confirm what the relationship is, and what basis therefore the Operator has for pursuing the Appellant rather than the [EMPLOYER NAME], other than a letter from the [EMPLOYER NAME] saying the Appellant was the driver. This has no more value than the letter provided by the Appellant’s colleague confirming they were in a meeting at the relevant time. In any event the appeal would still be allowed based on the above mentioned failures to comply with PoFA.

Although not specifically raised as an appeal point, the Appellant has raised PoFA deadlines and the failures by the Operator, particul arly the absence of any signed agreement by the hirer/Appellant, are fundamental in my view. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.'

My question is- I didn't ever receive a 'notice to hirer' - the vehicle in question was a courtesy car and I also was not provided with the copy of the signed agreement between myself and the car garage. I imagine that this is because the car garage replied to the original CN by providing my details as the driver rather than informing them that I was the hirer and sending a copy of the signed agreement. In these circumstances surely a precedent has been set and if I were to quote the above IAS ruling the appeal should be allowed due to the lack of compliance with the notice to hirer requirements? Or could they then reinstigate the whole process with the car garage to get a copy of the signed agreement?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would not quote that appeal (because none set a precedent) but you raise a good point about copying and using it for your own IAS appeal.

If you do IAS you have to evidence every single thing; i.e. you would have to prove it was a courtesy car with documentary evidence and you would have to upload the Notice to Keeper (both sides in case the IAS 'typical pompous git' says he doesn't believe it didn't have the required hire stuff on the back - not joking!). The IAS are (allegedly, on evidence seen) looking to reject any appeal from a motorist; they are considered to be a kangaroo court so you must think all the time 'how can I prove this sentence, how can I prove that sentence?' as you draft it. Even down to a link to Schedule 4 and quoting the same wording the Assessor did above.

I must go and lie down because it is the second time this week I suggested a case might just be IAS-worthy!

Aligoose

Thanks for the reply.

If I appealed on this basis could VCS argue that they didn't issue a notice to hirer as the car garage didn't inform them it was a hire vehicle and could they therefore start the whole process over again, I.e send another CN to the car garage?
Also is there a definition of a hire car? Would it include a courtesy car?

If I used the lack of notice to hirer as my main appeal point is there any need to include the other points often used in the appeals process or should I keep it simple by just using this one issue?

Coupon-mad

A courtesy car is on hire/lease and so paras 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA applies.

could VCS argue that they didn't issue a notice to hirer as the car garage didn't inform them it was a hire vehicle

No.

If I used the lack of notice to hirer as my main appeal point is there any need to include the other points often used in the appeals process or should I keep it simple by just using this one issue?

You could just go for really evidencing this one issue. Show us first, no saying who was driving or the entire appeal is blown out of the water.

Aligoose

Many thanks.
I'll draft an appeal and put it on here to get your advice.

Is it relevant that VCS have not referred anywhere to the POFA? Or is it that this is the legislation they should have used to obtain my information from the car garage so the fact that they haven't referred to it is irrelevant?

Coupon-mad

VCS will say in court (IF if they try a small claim, which they do a lot) that they don't rely upon the POFA. They are assuming the keeper was the driver and so that means if the Judge agrees on the balance of probabilities, they don't need to comply with the POFA.

twhitehousescat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

VCS will say in court that they don't rely upon the POFA. They are assuming the keeper was the driver.

and stated on record , humberside "like all other airport sites" has a "xx" waiting limit , 30 secs if I remember correctly , and I do have a copy of the posting

VCS kill the golden goose ,,, not a chance

Coupon-mad

That's true - there was a posting from the Airport saying that.