Hire Car - Appeal for Missing Documents?

Aurelient1

Hello everyone,

First of all, thanks a lot guys for everything you have done so far to help people not becoming cash cows towards these unscrupulous private companies who claim disproportionate amount of money when you don't even make them loose anything in most of the cases.
Glad to see there is still people in this world fighting the unfairness.

About my case:
As I have been living in England for only 3 years now, I did not know anything about private parking tickets until yesterday, when I spent 5 hours reading a lot of threads on this forum on how I could appeal for the parking charge notice I have recently received.

I understood that since the Beavis case, we cannot appeal with the "no-loss" argument.
I also have to say that the parking company did a good job in securing their business as there is nothing to say on the display/signage on site, on the pictures evidences, or on the PCN itself as everything is well defined, even the keeper-liability.

However, as this car is a lease, the parking company sent the PCN to the lease company. My lease company sent them my details, referring me as the keeper of the car so they stay away of this situation.

That means I am now expecting a NTK in my mailbox, and the only chance I can have to appeal is if I do not receive the documents they have to send me in time.

If I understand well Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 13 – (2), they have to send me:
the NTK + the original PCN + the following documents:

(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.

When I have contacted the lease company, they told me this:

I have looked into the fine for you and can confirm that we received the fine dated the XX/XX/XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX and sent your details back to the parking company on the XX/XX/XXXX. I can also confirm that we did not send a hire agreement as it is not a requirement by them.

QUESTIONS:
Should I understand from Section 13-2 that the parking company have to send me documents (a) AND (b) AND (c), or can they just send me one of these documents ?

If they have to send all these documents, then I believe I will never receive the documents required by section 13-2 for them to exercise their right to recover the unpaid charge within 28 days as they have never asked the hire agreement to my lease company.

Can I be confident on appealing following Edna Basher's template? ([forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69859059#post69859059)

Thanks for your advise!

Coupon-mad

Should I understand from Section 13-2 that PE have to send me documents (a) AND (b) AND (c), or can they just send me one of these documents ?

They won't send ANYTHING else with the PCN to you, so then you appeal online as 'lessee/hirer'. Several examples seen like this, and yes:

can I be confident on appealing following Edna Basher's template?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69859059#post69859059

You can! Good research, you will WIN.

I would say your only urgent task is to edit your first post, get rid of the 'basic facts' in your post above, NOW because it says who was driving...just in case parking firms are reading the forum. Make sure nothing in this thread says who parked.

Aurelient1

Thanks CM!

You say they won't send anything else with the PCN. But in theory they should if they follow the law right?

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's why we confidently tell you that you will win. No PPC does this right.

Guys_Dad

Forget the out of time argument. It only seems to cover the time to send the initial NTK to the hire company.

Common sense says that since the time it takes the hire company to name the hirer is outside the control of the PPC they could not be held to a 14 day timescale to get the NTK to the hirer.

Coupon-mad

Common sense says that since the time it takes the hire company to name the hirer is outside the control of the PPC they could not be held to a 14 day timescale to get the NTK to the hirer.

I think they have 21 days to get it to the hirer (info possibly buried somewhere in Schedule 4) but none of it will matter because the PPC won't send any documents with the PCN.

Slam dunk win! PE might even bow out immediately.

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think they have 21 days to get it to the hirer (info possibly buried somewhere in Schedule 4) but none of it will matter because the PPC won't send any documents with the PCN.

The PPC has 21 days from when they receive the documents from the hire company to deliver a Notice to Hirer along with the documents. As per paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA these documents are:-

(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.

We have never known a PPC to comply with POFA by providing these documents with a Notice to Hirer. In fact the hire companies trade body has struck a deal with PPCs that they never send these documents merely pass on the details of the hirer so the PPC can never comply with POFA to hold the hirer liable for parking charges incurred by the driver.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

The PPC has 21 days from when they receive the documents from the hire company to deliver a Notice to Hirer along with the documents.

I agree with Nigel's post. However, this is the difficult part to prove and why I said ignore the out of time. So don't waste any time or words on that.

But they almost always forget the required documentation as pre previous posts.

Edna_Basher

Hi Aurelient1

So long as the PPC is a BPA accredited operator, you'll have an easy win at POPLA (should your case even get that far).

Which PPC issued the PCN?

henrik777

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I agree with Nigel's post. However, this is the difficult part to prove and why I said ignore the out of time. So don't wast any time or words on that.

But they almost always forget the required documentation as pre previous posts.

How many use the 21 day warning in 14 (5) (c) ?

Coupon-mad

henrik777 wrote: »

How many use the 21 day warning in 14 (5) (c) ?

I've only noticed that ParkingEye do, but still consider appeals received later than that.