Notice to Hirer PCN from PE

Fambus

Good Day to All,

I received an email from Enterprise (1-day rental) with a letter attached and dated XX. The letter informs me of an admin charge for Enterprise’s efforts in forwarding the hirer’s details and POFA Para13(2) documents to PE. Having read around the Forum including the Newbies thread, I present my attempt at appealing the expected postal PCN for scrutiny. I will appeal as an individual not a company.

Background:
At the time of the alleged parking violation (XX), it was dark and the lack of functional lighting meant the signage was unclear. The driver and other customers noted the PDT Machine (PEXX) on XXXl was out of order. The driver seeked further assistance from two nearby businesses which advised it was not functional. With no other means of providing payment, the driver proceeded with thier duties, leaving the car parked for 40 minutes without being able to obtain a valid ticket.

I have struggled to find information on the landowner in order to request the PCN to be cancelled.

I believe my only other basis of appeal is to scrutinise the compliance of the NTH as per POFA Schedule 4? If PE alleges keeper liability, I understand that in addition to the NTH, PE must provide the documents in para 13(2) and do so within 21 days of correspondence from the registered keeper. In other words, the hirer cannot be held liable if the postal PCN is issued after XX?
If I do find this to be the case, I intend to appeal online as below.

Proposed Online Appeal:
To whom it may concern,

Reference: Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxx : Vehicle Registration xxxxxxx

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by ParkingEye Ltd (“ParkingEye”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

I deny any liability in respect of the parking charge allegedly incurred. Although the PCN states the reason for issue as "unpaid parking", it provides no evidence to support this claim. In the absence of any conclusive evidence in support of the alleged breach, we trust you will agree that it would be unreasonable for ParkingEye to expect payment for this charge. The driver noted the PDT Machine (XX) on XXX was out of order. The driver seeked further assistance from two nearby businesses which also advised it was not functional. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract.

Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on-site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

Given that ParkingEye has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,

I will greatly appreciate any feedback, guidance and efforts to fill the gaps in my understanding.

Fruitcake

You seem to have a fairy good grasp of this scam, other than no violation has occurred.

You need to check everything that does or doesn't come with the NTH as it's not just the dates that are important.
All the documents quoted in the POFA must be supplied. If they aren't there then that keeper/hirer liability does not apply.

If/when you win, go back to the hire co and state that since the PCN should never have been issued, you want your money back that they docked. You have about three months to do a charge back if they don't play ball.

Please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Umkomaas

'Seeked' - no such word. It's 'sought'.

Your appeal is too heavy on detail and unlikely to make any difference.

If it was the only P&D machine on the car park, try and get the retailers you spoke with to confirm that it wasn't working, and ask them to provide written confirmation, although expect PE to counter that with a list of successful transactions around your time.

Your best bet is to hope that PE don't submit all the essential documentation for PoFA hirer liability - they've never managed that in the past to my knowledge.

Fambus

Can you enlighten me on whats meant by "other than no violation has occurred"?

Enterprise advised the admin charge will be refunded provided I forward either an email or proof of cancellation from PE (or POPLA should it go that far).

Many Thanks

nosferatu1001

Those documents MUST be included in the Notice to Hirer that PE send to you
There is no chance they actually included this, meaning you have a complete win at POPLA

"offence, penalty, charge or fine " - these do not include invoices issued by private firms.
" respect of any illegal parking, non-compliance with a bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence o" - none of these includes allegedly contravening a private firms rules (because this is not ILLEGAL which would be a criminal case, just potentially breahc of a civil contract)

Fambus

Can I ask why there would be 'no chance' of them enclosing the required documents, especially if the hire company has provided them? Surely it would be easier and cheaper for these scam companies to get this part right rather than have to deal with an appeal or the chance of it going to court? Many Thanks

Umkomaas

Can I ask why there would be 'no chance' of them enclosing the required documents

Who knows? Based on the experience here, no PPC gets hire car PoFA claims right. Maybe they've missed the prescribed timescale?

MistyZ

Fambus wrote: »

Can I ask why there would be 'no chance' of them enclosing the required documents, especially if the hire company has provided them?

I don't know either. However I'm currently awaiting the POPLA result for a friend's hire car PCN and I've searched the forum high and low for one single example of hire docs arriving with the NTH - nothing!

Think I saw something about an agreement between the hire firms ... anyway I think this all stems from them rather than the PPCs .... i.e. that they do not send them to the PPCs. Regardless of the whys & wherefores, this POFA failure is the key to POPLA success I hear.

When I set up my big PPC scam I will be sure to get around this and send the docs to hirers in triplicate. I will also be a friendless, miserable piece of scum.

Fruitcake

With reference to my comment that no violation had occurred, it means exactly that.

In the Ts and Cs you say,

you will be liable as the owner, driver or operator of the Vehicle for any offence, penalty, charge or fine that is committed, issued or incurred in respect of any illegal parking, non-compliance with a bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence

A PCN from an unregulated scammer is none of these. It is not a violation. It is a speculative invoice. It's no different to an invoice from a tradesperson who has sent you a bill for something that you dispute.

As for the "no chance" comment, it's simply that no PPC has ever managed it yet. If they do, your case will be the first in PCN history.


For the purposes of the PoFA 2012, the person who hired the car is The Hirer or The (day to day) Keeper. This is the person in charge of the car on the day in question. They are not the owner or registered keeper.

Fambus

Hi All,

I've received the NTH in the post today but without any copies of the Hire documents and NTK.
See Links to Front/Reverse Scan below:
postimg.cc/dhNKsw4c
postimg.cc/8jw24T8f

Since the strict regulations of POFA schedule 4 have not been adhered, particularly paragraph 14(2)(a, I am therefore not liable to pay this parking charge.

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.

Should I appeal immediately or on day 21 (giving them no time to send me the (13)(a documents should they clock on following my appeal?

Your efforts are highly appreciated.

P.s I have complained to my local MP.