Notice to hirer with no option for appeal

Coupon-mad

I would add here:

In order for you to demand payment from me as the hirer of the vehicle, you [STRIKE]will need[/STRIKE] had your chance (and failed) to comply to POFA. More specifically;

Plus, add something telling them NOT to telephone or text any number, and to remove all phone numbers from their stored data, because they are harassing you and causing you and your partner significant distress, without lawful excuse, as they are trying to obtain monies by deception regarding liability, despite knowing they have not complied with para 13/14 of the POFA Schedule 4.

Moreover, the phone number is not yours so you, or more likely, the phone contract holder will complain to the ICO, if SIP and their agents do not immediately cease and desist with all contact except by letter to the correct postal address.

Also you could add a dig about the Parliamentary debate and tell them that you think they've 'been Gladstoned' already, stitched up with a business model of aggressive ticketing that has no cause of action, will not win in court and is causing serious distress. Quote the MPs in the debate (linked all over this forum) when they discussed Gladstones.

That makes SIP's life difficult, because they only sue by using Gladstones.

Lay it on thick about distress. Can be useful later.

peacock403

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. my draft is below;

Further to your letter regarding the above PCN, you have stated that you have not been in breach of the POFA and therefore will continue to chase me as the hirer of the vehicle. I beg to differ and wish to clarify my point.

To emphasise, I reply as the hirer of the vehicle and this is not an admission to being the driver. Other people are permitted to drive this vehicle under this contract. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Please note that Elliot v Loake is not appropriate under these circumstances.

In order for you to demand payment from me as the hirer of the vehicle, you had your chance (and failed) to comply to POFA. More specifically;

13(2) of POFA 2012...
"The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given!!!;

(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.

AND

Paragraph 14(2), (3), (5d) & (7) of POFA 2012:

(2) The conditions are that;
(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.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) the relevant period is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.
(5) The notice to hirer must!!!8212;
(d) inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(7) In sub-paragraph (5)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes!!!8212;
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the hirer about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the hirer to independent adjudication or arbitration.

As the hirer, I never did receive from you the documents as specified in paragraph 14(2a) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company. You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company.

You should have sent the notice to hirer to me no later than 21 days from the date you received the hirer details 14 (3). Therefore I should have received the documents no later than 2 February 2018. As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability.

You were supposed to include a discount if the amount paid early which you failed and therefore have again failed to comply and can therefore not chase me as the keeper of the vehicle.

The notice to hirer I received did not contain any information on how I can appeal despite this being the first time I received this.

As you are unable to;
a) prove who the driver of the vehicle was at that stated time
b) hold the keeper/hirer liable for the charge because of the failure to comply to POFA,

You have no other choice than to cancel this charge. I therefore expect a notice of cancellation from you.

I ask you to also remove my mobile number and my partner!!!8217;s from your database as they were unlawfully procured. The lease company has confirmed that they never gave out my or my partner!!!8217;s mobile number. In fact they never had my partner!!!8217;s contact details. Any more contact via this method will result in an official complaint to the ICO.

You have already caused significant distress in my family by harassing us over the phone without lawful excuse knowing fully that you did not comply to POFA and therefore have no chance of collecting this charge !!!8211; even if it were to go to court.

You!!!8217;ve been Gladstoned' already, stitched up with a business model of aggressive ticketing that has no cause of action, will not win in court and is causing serious distress.

I also will be raising this harassment to my MP and I am glad your business models have been discussed in Parliament and MPs have agreed that there is !!!8216;no place for it in the 21st Century!!!8217;.

Regards,

DoaM

I ask you to remove ... ?

Surely you mean ... I demand you remove ...

peacock403

DoaM wrote: »

I ask you to remove ... ?

Surely you mean ... I demand you remove ...

Good point. Will amend.

peacock403

Just thinking now that at the end of the letter, i add.

I reiterate, cease and desist from chasing me, the keeper/hirer for this charge. You have no lawful grounds!

Coupon-mad

Never with an exclamation mark, in a formal letter. Looks hysterical or mad, and not professional.

peacock403

Thank you all. I will update you on the outcome.

peacock403

After posting the letters over a week ago, today I get a call from the lease company. Apparently PPC has called the lease company threatening them to be taken to court if they don't pay. Now lease company is afraid because very recently another lease company was taken to court and lost in a similar case - not sure which case this is but it involved an NHS worker.

I have explained to them that they did everything right so cannot be held liable as registered keeper and that I have acknowledged to PPC that I am the hirer of the vehicle. For some reason lease company still thinks that they can be taken to court. Another reason they gave me is that they think PPC is not part of BPA or IPC so they can be liable as registered keeper. I have told them that PPC is part of IPC. I don't think they've done their homework here. I am sending lease company copies of the correspondence with PPC. Is there anything else i should include? Lease company have also asked for any written legal advice I have received.

waamo

Ask the leasing company for copies of the correspondence from the ppc confirming that they can be taken to court. I suspect the ppc won't want to put that in writing.

Telephone calls are worth the paper they are written on.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, however I imagine the lease company has recorded the calls - most do?

If so, ask for a copy. you can then complain to the DVLA that the company is KNOWINGLY threatening action it CANNOT pursue, and what the f will they do about relesaing data to this company?