Car Hire popla

Dane19

MistyZ wrote: »

Good luck, I'm probably not the only person who is really rooting for you. I'm just disgusted to hear that P.E. have lied.

I got a 'like' from Coupon_mad re. asking the hire company when they sent the docs to P.E. and think I'll interpret that as 'worth a punt'. If you could get an answer from them tomorrow - even if over the phone - and quote any helpful reply in your rebuttal, that might add even more weight to your argument.

So how does the time the hire company sent the docs to PE play a part in this?

Edna_Basher

Dane19 wrote: »

On the first page of he evidence pack they have a statement saying
I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements
Now I don’t know if this means they have sent it now or before, besides this they haven’t specifically mentioned they enclosed it with NTH. Am I making sense ?

This is pretty much the standard wording they use at the beginning of their evidence packs. In the text of their Case Summary, whilst they wouldn't admit that they didn't include hire documents with their Notice to Hirer, I don't believe that they would have lied by claiming that they did send the documents.

I think you need to draw POPLA's attention to the wording on the reverse of PE's PCN under the heading "Protection of Freedoms Act" i.e. We refer you to the notice to keeper which has been given under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (f). We have been made aware by the vehicle-hire / lease company that you were the hirer / lessee of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event and they have provided your details, together with a copy of your signed hire agreement and statement of liability. If these documents had been included with the Notice to Hirer then this paragraph would surely have included additional wording to state that these documents had been enclosed.

You'll be playing "assessor roulette" and you'll just have to hope that you don't get allocated one of POPLA's weaker assessors. Unfortunately their number seem to be growing and as the months pass, so the odds are becoming increasingly stacked against the "appellant".

Dane19

Edna_Basher wrote: »

This is pretty much the standard wording they use at the beginning of their evidence packs. In the text of their Case Summary, whilst they wouldn't admit that they didn't include hire documents with their Notice to Hirer, I don't believe that they would have lied by claiming that they did send the documents.

I think you need to draw POPLA's attention to the wording on the reverse of PE's PCN under the heading "Protection of Freedoms Act" i.e. We refer you to the notice to keeper which has been given under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (f). We have been made aware by the vehicle-hire / lease company that you were the hirer / lessee of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event and they have provided your details, together with a copy of your signed hire agreement and statement of liability. If these documents had been included with the Notice to Hirer then this paragraph would surely have included additional wording to state that these documents had been enclosed.

You'll be playing "assessor roulette" and you'll just have to hope that you don't get allocated one of POPLA's weaker assessors. Unfortunately their number seem to be growing and as the months pass, so the odds are becoming increasingly stacked against the "appellant".

So shall I scrap the landowner authority and use my letters to mention the above ?

Edna_Basher

I guess it depends on how weak the landholder's witness statement is. If this didn't specify any dates then there is a decent chance that the POPLA assessor may decide that it is not valid evidence.

With regard to submitting comments on operators' evidence packs, we tend to put ours in PDF documents and send them by email (as a direct reply to POPLA's email notifying us that the evidence is available on their website). POPLA are always accepting of this and at least this means we're not constrained by the measly 2,000 character limit on their website.

nigelbb

Dane19 wrote: »

So how does the time the hire company sent the docs to PE play a part in this?

If they were only sent to PE recently that would be proof positive that they could not have been sent with the NTH.

Dane19

Edna_Basher wrote: »

I guess it depends on how weak the landholder's witness statement is. If this didn't specify any dates then there is a decent chance that the POPLA assessor may decide that it is not valid evidence.


Edna can you tell me your thoughts on this witness statement please the balackening is done by them.

With regard to submitting comments on operators' evidence packs, we tend to put ours in PDF documents and send them by email (as a direct reply to POPLA's email notifying us that the evidence is available on their website). POPLA are always accepting of this and at least this means we're not constrained by the measly 2,000 character limit on their website.

Yes I read about it but I also read some cases where the asessors didn't bother looking at it.

Dane19

nigelbb wrote: »

If they were only sent to PE recently that would be proof positive that they could not have been sent with the NTH.

The letter is dated 12 days after the pcn was issued to the hire company.

nigelbb

Dane19 wrote: »

The letter is dated 12 days after the pcn was issued to the hire company.

What letter?

Edna_Basher

You certainly need to highlight that the landowner's so-called statement of authority was signed in 2013 and does not specify the period of time that such authority would be in place. It does not prove that the authority was still in place over 5 years later.

Even I think that most POPLA assessors would not accept this as proof of authority.

Dane19

nigelbb wrote: »

What letter?

This letter from the lease company