PCN issued during Zipcar reservation for exceeding maximum stay

Umkomaas

IAS/IPC - there's not much difference between them. One purports to deal professionally and impartially with appeals, the other is the IAS. Or is that the other way around

Confused.co.za

waamo

Umkomaas wrote: »

IAS/IPC - there's not much difference between them. One purports to deal professionally and impartially with appeals, the other is the IAS. Or is that the other way around

Confused.co.za

I get confused as to their actual company names from week to week. It's difficult to keep up it changes that often.

Crabman

Threads have been merged

bobbybobbo

Just got a reply on this from UK CPM. They cancelled the PCN!! I'm over the moon as expected this one to drag out as was warned that appeals to IPC members are generally pointless. For future readers, I used the draft letter I posted above.

Thank you again. You guys really do great work here, and I'm very thankful for the time, knowledge and generosity you guys put into this forum.

Umkomaas

Well done. Real surprise, but one to savour. Monkey off your back time. Raising a glass or two over this weekend, I suspect.

bobbybobbo

So an update on this. I had received 3 PCNs for this same alleged offence (same location, same hire vehicle, different dates). The first two appeals were successful, but the third has just come back as rejected. The first two responses I got 28 and 29 days after my appeal. So I think what happened is that they were backlogged and just auto-accepting stuff that went over the time limit. The 3rd response was within the time frame at 26 days post appeal.

I plan to appeal to IAS using the thread linked in the NEWBIES thread regarding IAS and hire vehicles. How does this look:

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. XXXXXXXXXXXX

I was the registered keeper of hire vehicle XXXXXX during the alleged contravention on 3 December 2018.

UK CPM initially contacted the hire company, ZIPCAR, on 10 December 2018. ZIPCAR responded to UK CPM on 27 December 2018. I received a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from UK CPM dated 23 January 2019.

I responded to this notice and UK CPM rejected my appeal and informed me that I can now submit a further appeal to the IAS.

I therefore would like to appeal this notice on the following points:

This is a hire vehicle and the position in relation to such vehicles is covered by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule IV of PoFA. 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.

I have not been shown any evidence that 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 UK CPM, is able 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 ZIPCAR was received on 27 December 2018. The NTK was sent 27 days later, on 23 January 2019, and there is no evidence regarding method of service.

On this basis it is clear that UK CPM have failed to comply with PoFA deadlines and thus my cannot hold me liable as keeper of the vehicle.

Yours faithfully,

bobbybobbo

Anyone?

I suspect the standard advice will be "IAS appeals are unsuccessful so don't bother", but the NEWBIES thread does say that it could be worth appealing in this specific circumstance - a hire vehicle where the PPC first contacted the hire company.

bobbybobbo

Third time's a charm.

If no reply, I'll just go with what I posted but would be nice to get a second pair of eyes on it.

Umkomaas

Resource is so limited on the forum that any appeal to the IAS doesn't get much attention as, while important to the OP, the effort to review, analyse and critique reviews is nugatory, as they're almost all rejected out of hand.

If you're going to appeal to the IAS, I'd compare the current ticket/rejection with previous circumstances, appeals and cancellation by the PPC and stress that there isn't a Rizla between the cases and you'd expect the IAS to uphold the appeal or explain clearly why and what they feel the differences are to not uphold the appeal.

HTH.

Coupon-mad

You were not the registered keeper, so do not say you were:

I was the registered keeper of hire vehicle XXXXXX during the alleged contravention on 3 December 2018.

You were the hirer/lessee but not the only insured driver.

You need to prove EVERYTHING you say, by uploading evidence to the IAS, you can't just state things or thy will side with their beloved IPC-fee-paying scumbag firm.

Don't say this:

I have not been shown any evidence that this has been done.

What you mean is, UKCPM did not send any of the above with the NTK/NTH.