NSL Parking Charge Notice on Leased Car

Edna_Basher

KeithP wrote: »

It might be a good idea to tip off the hire company/lessor and instruct them not to pay anything to NSL, should they be contacted.

+1

Good idea KeithP

Scoobylou9

Hi Kieth,

I’ve already emailed the leasing company and informed them about a PCN I recieved from a PPC.

I’m guessing they’ll be contacted anyway in the form of an NTK, they’ll respond to the PPC with hirers details (me) and then I’ll receive an NTH. I should receive by no later than day 56 of the initial windscreen PCN, is this correct?

Since the PPC most likely have pictures of the car clearly parked directly in front of a sign, I’m thinking that my only hope of getting the PCN cancelled would be to cross my fingers and hope that the PPC fail in sending the NTH within the specified 56 days. In this case I’m risking the fine going up to £100 since that is my ONLY hope and I’m wondering if that’s a wise move?

I know for sure that I can’t use signage as an appeal point because the sign they have up is actually very clear and in large font (including the £100 fine warning). I can’t cite bad/inadequate lighting making the sign not clear or visible because the PCN was issued at 9:30AM.

Can I use the 10 minute grace period as a point of appeal and how strong an argument will that even be given that I wasn’t in a car park of any sort where my ticket simply ran out of time. It’s a council estate parking bay.

I’ve read many appeals and I notice that the assessor usually only picks one appeal point which enables him/her to “allow the appeal”, even though those appeals contain several different points.

I guess what I’m asking is are there any concrete appeal points I could use to definitely get this cancelled at POPLA stage and not simply just wait and hope for them to mess up (if there’s no guarantee of them doing this) at the risk of paying the full £100 and not the discounted £60.

Many thanks guys.

Scoobylou9

This is the signage.

i65.tinypic.com/2w2isl4.png

I’m not sure if this relevant but the bay in which the car was parked isn’t numbered and all the markings (bay numbers) in that area have faded almost completely.

Redx

Scoobylou9 wrote: »

I’m guessing they’ll be contacted anyway in the form of an NTK, they’ll respond to the PPC with hirers details (me) and then I’ll receive an NTH.

I should receive by no later than day 56 of the initial windscreen PCN, is this correct?

Since the PPC most likely have pictures of the car clearly parked directly in front of a sign, I’m thinking that my only hope of getting the PCN cancelled would be to cross my fingers and hope that the PPC fail in sending the NTH within the specified 56 days.

no , not correct, that applies to a PRIVATE vehicle where its the keepers name on the V5C, so 28 days for the driver to appeal followed 28 days for the keeper to appeal

they get more time for these hire or lease vehicles, see the edna basher explanations and/or read POFA

Scoobylou9

I’ve been scouring the Newbies thread as well as the POPLA decisions thread and some of the recent appeals were allowed because the PPC failed to produce a contract between themselves and the landowner.

The landowner in my case will be The London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I’ve seen in a much older thread a link to an FOI request for a contract between NSL and Tower Hamlets Homes and it turns out it wasn’t a contract but an agreement. The only other thing I found was a document dated 2016 which is in fact a contract I believe because it is titled as such and sets out NSL’s responsibilities and does include ticketing cars with PCN’s.

Further FOI requests though (two made in 2018) produced the same agreement/contract from 2014 and not more recent ones and names and signatures were the only things redacted from it in accordance with the Data Protection Act. I’m thinking that if I were to request the landowner contract/authority then NSL will happily produce it with only the signatures and names of the people agreeing to it redacted. Will this redaction be enough for POPLA to cancel my ticket?

I’m just trying to weigh up my probability of winning here and feel like unless they mess up with the NTH my best bet is the landowner contract. Obviously I would rather pay £60 than £100 and if my chances of success are slim then I’d rather cut my losses and pay up.

Thanks guys.

Scoobylou9

they get more time for these hire or lease vehicles, see the edna basher explanations and/or read POFA

I have been reading these threads but I can’t find anywhere how long it should be before a hirer/leasee is supposed to receive the NTH, if you or anybody could kindly share?

Thanks.

nigelbb

Scoobylou9 wrote: »

The landowner in my case will be The London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

In that case where you parked is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 & the keeper cannot be held liable for unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver. Wait for the NTK. It's unlikely it will claim that the keeper is liable but if it does it is a case of fraud.

Scoobylou9

[In that case where you parked is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 & the keeper cannot be held liable for unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver. Wait for the NTK. It's unlikely it will claim that the keeper is liable but if it does it is a case of fraud./QUOTE]

Thanks. Here is an excerpt from a document relating to TH Councils contract with NSL:

Executive Summary
The Council currently holds a three-lot contract with NSL Services Ltd for the removal of vehicles on the highway, the removal of abandoned vehicles and enforcement of parking restrictions on land managed by Tower Hamlets Homes. Permission is sought for an eight-month extension for this contract and retrospective permission to include the tendering out of parking enforcement on housing land in the new contract.

The PCN was issued on behalf of Tower Hamlets Homes by NSL. THH are an agent of the council I believe but from the above except certainly are not the landowners of the areas they manage/control.

So you’re certain I, as the keeper, can’t be held responsible for the drivers decision to park where they were not supposed to (according to THH/NSL)?

I won’t be receiving an NTK but an NTH as the car is leased, I still won’t be held liable, right?

Thanks.

Redx

chances are that even if the council owned the land is leased out to an ALMO or similar (this Tower Hamlets Housing association) and so I dont think any POFA issues would wash about non-relevant land

my council leases out the Chorlton Precinct car park to EXCEL on a long term basis, so POFA applies

as for theis pcn, and it being a hire or lease vehicle, the timeframe is clearly stated in the newbies thread as 21 days from when the PPC are made aware of it being a lease or hire vehicle, that is the timeframe under POFA and the rules of POFA would apply, or the PPC would fail


it does NOT run from when the windscreen ticket was issued, due to the legal complications on ownership and contract laws etc


this was why I said wait and see what happens, but you have too many "what if" scenarios that I for one refuse to engage in

the basics are as follows

EDNA etc recommend that the hirer or lessee appeal as that entity (keeper) on day 25 and the PPC may well believe that its a private vehicle

after that , it all depends on what the PPC does and how they do it, they "should" follow BVRLA guidelines, and POFA , but whether they will or not remains to be seen

landowner contracts, signage , BPA CoP, ANPR issues and all the usual appeal points are also valid , plus parts of POFA that relate specifically to hire or lease or company vehicles, hence the BVRLA guidelines from about 4 years ago

the PPC only has to fail on one item to completely fail , so let them make their mistakes, because they have had 6.5 years to get it right and you have had 6.5 years to understand it, but as its new to you then use this as a learning exercise, because you must know by now that this contract law and POFA and landowner issues are all topics in themselves that even learned people fail to grasp , as do private parking companies


you can see how some of the arguments prevail in this ongoing POPLA appeal with PE and a hire vehicle


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972928/car-hire-popla

nigelbb

Redx wrote: »

chances are that even if the council owned the land is leased out to an ALMO or similar (this Tower Hamlets Housing association) and so I dont think any POFA issues would wash about non-relevant land

my council leases out the Chorlton Precinct car park to EXCEL on a long term basis, so POFA applies

It's arguable. POFA says that it's not relevant land if it's a parking place provided by a traffic authority i.e. a council. There is no qualification as to whether it's leased out or not. If the council is providing the parking place then AFAICS it's not relevant land.