PCN Scotland - Hire Car

Loch_Ness_Munster

Hi,
I've read the introductory threads, etc and am quite confused. I have a PCN from CP Plus for a car I hired from Enterprise Car Hire relating to overstay parking at MOTO Stirling Service. Enterprise have obviously provided my details to CP Plus. Dates, details, etc seem correct.

The guidance in the Newbies thread suggests a consistent response across the UK if a hired car is involved. However, the various templates provided (Edna Basher) make reference to the 'Protection of Freedoms Act 2012' and to 'POPLA', neither of which apply to Scotland. Therefore I am not convinced at all that these templates are relevant to my PCN.

Any advice or clarification very much appreciated.
S

Coupon-mad

Now this one is a good one - something a bit different! - to ask about, as it is a mixed bag of facts:

(a) Scotland (normally ignore, due to no POFA) but

(b) Lease car (never ignore or they might revert to the lease firm who might pay)

and

(c) ...it's CP Plus who tend to fold when they see the appeal template from Edna Basher

So, I would submit an appeal to pull CP Plus in your direction but making it clear the driver will not tbe named. The important thing is to stop them from writing to the rk (lease firm) ever again.

Trying adapting Edna's words to say:

You cannot hold me liable because para 13/14 of the POFA Sch4 has not been complied with and I stay in Scotland where there is no keeper/hirer liability and the Act has no application against me. Cancel the PCN.

Aberdoon

Thank you so much Coupon-mad. I'm proposing the following:

Dear.....
I refer to the above-detailed Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by CP Plus Ltd (“CP Plus”).

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.

The PCN relates to a location in Scotland where there is no keeper/hirer liability. In addition, the principles of Schedule 4 of POFA (Paragraph 13/14) have not been complied with.

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 the subject Charge Notice (to hirer) did not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and I refer you to Paragraphs 13 and 14 in particular.

Given therefore that CP Plus has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge.

Thank you for your cooperation da-di-da....

Any thoughts?

KeithP

Aberdoon, even though you may have a similar issue to Loch Ness Munster, please can you start a new thread.

Dealing with two people's problems in the one thread can only lead to confusion.

Loch_Ness_Munster

Keith,
My apologies, in fact it's the same case. Turns out I had a previous profile on my laptop and when I answered to Coupon-mad it appeared under that'd profile. So the proposed wording is in fact relating to the original post.
LNM

Edna_Basher

You could try something like this.

Dear Sir,

PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxx – Vehicle Registration FU02CPP

I refer to the above Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by CP Plus Ltd (“CP Plus”) in respect of an alleged contravention of the terms and conditions of parking at Moto Stirling by the driver of the above-detailed vehicle on [Date]. I confirm that I am the vehicle’s hirer and keeper and I write to dispute the validity of this PCN.

Although the PCN claims that the vehicle parked for longer than the time permitted, it provides no clear evidence to support of this claim, [containing only two unclear photographs of the vehicle on what appears to be a public highway]*.

Notwithstanding this, the PCN - having been issued in Scotland - falls outside of the scope of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such, liability for unpaid parking charges is limited only to vehicles’ drivers.

Given that there are no possible circumstances under which the vehicle’s registered keeper Enterprise Rent-a-Car could be liable for this PCN, you must not contact them again. Instead, please direct any further correspondence to me in my capacity as the vehicle’s hirer.

I expect to receive just one further communication from you – i.e. written confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled which must be provided to me within the timescales specified under the BPA Code of Practice. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving this confirmation.

Yours faithfully,


* amend as appropriate

There's no guarantee that CP Plus will cancel. However, even though the incident took place in Scotland and there is no avenue to POPLA, the BPA Code of Practice still requires CP Plus to respond to "appeals" within 35 days.

Coupon-mad

That's perfect, exactly what I had in mind.

The most important thing is to pull this case away from CP Plus reverting to Enterprise which is why a hirer/lessee (EVEN IN SCOTLAND) must never sit on their hands.

Hutchy96

Just to add to this thread - I was given a PCN by P4 Parking Ltd in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. I have already appealed the charge, as I hire the vehicle on a contract lease from VW. I copied Edna Basher's response above and added in some additional info to state that the signage on the site was non-existent etc and told them no details of the driver would be disclosed.

I have also phoned VW and told them I am dealing with P4 Parking direct, plus alert me if P4 do get in contact or send an invoice to VW.

Anyway - to my question. I received the below response from P4 Parking to my appeal...

"Thank you for your correspondence received on 20th September 2019, however, it would greatly aid us in processing your appeal if you can supply us with the name of the driver and their address details, if we don’t receive this information by day 35 (25/10/2019) we will have no choice but to process your appeal based upon the information we have. Please note that we will seek to invoke Keeper Liability on day 29 as per POFA 2012.

You can either provide us the driver details by submitting the same appeal online process or by
emailing our complaints department on complaints@p4parking.co.uk.

We are looking forward to hearing from you!
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
P4Parking UK Ltd"

I'm assuming its safe to ignore the above? Firstly, I am in Scotland so POFA does not apply. Second of all, I have told them to send correspondence to me and not to VW, whilst also alerting VW to ignore them. Finally, I have told them in the original appeal that no driver's details will be disclosed - hence why they seem to be asking for them here!

Thanks
Adam

Umkomaas

Thank you for your correspondence received on 20th September 2019, however, it would greatly aid us in [STRIKE]processing your appeal[/STRIKE] getting half a chance of grabbing £100 if you can supply us with the name of the driver and their address details,

Fixed that for them!

Please note that we will seek to invoke Keeper Liability on day 29 as per POFA 2012.

Make an immediate complaint to Steve Clark of the BPA and to the DVLA that P4P are misleading you by quoting a law that does not apply to you in Scotland in an attempt to coerce information to which they have no entitlement. Other PPCs in the past have had their DVLA database access suspended because of the very same misinformation.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

Let us know what transpires.

L

Hutchy96

Umkomaas wrote: »

Make an immediate complaint to Steve Clark of the BPA and to the DVLA that P4P are misleading you by quoting a law that does not apply to you in Scotland in an attempt to coerce information to which they have no entitlement. Other PPCs in the past have had their DVLA database access suspended because of the very same misinformation.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

Let us know what transpires.

L

Thanks for your reply.

Despite the reponse I received above from P4P, I received further correspondence from them on Friday last week (18th October) as follows:

"Our Department received your correspondence on 20/09/2019 and would like to inform you that after further investigations, on this occasion we approve the cancellation of the above Parking Charge notice as a gesture of good will, kindly note the matter is now closed.

No Valid Parking Permit On Visible Display

Although I sympathise with your concerns, at the time of your vehicle contravention and subsequent issuance with a Parking Charge Notice the vehicle was in breach of the above and therefore, correctly charged under the power given to us by the landowner. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.

In future if your vehicle is found on the premises in breach of the parking regulations the vehicle will be ticketed and the parking charge notice will stand.

Kind regards,
Appeals Department"

I fully expected this to be an e-mail from them to say they were getting in touch with the DVLA, but they have obviously looked over the appeal again since I didn't submit any further info to them after their request (driver details). They've obviously realised I wasn't going to give up the driver and that they were standing on thin ground.

Many thanks to Edna Basher for the excellent script.

I fully intend to e-mail complaints to the addresses provided by Umkomaas and see what transpires. I will provide an update here when I get something back.

- Adam

Umkomaas

Glad you’ve got the cancellation, that’s a good outcome for you.

I fully intend to e-mail complaints to the addresses provided by Umkomaas and see what transpires. I will provide an update here when I get something back.

I’m pleased you intend to do this, because there’s a much bigger picture than fighting individual cases. In the context of your skirmish with P4P, I wonder how many keepers will have been duped by their unlawful claim that the keeper is potentially liable if the driver’s head isn’t offered up, and have, through this misinformation, paid up?

Please do keep us in the loop.