Appeal deadline looming - please help

Ed_Winchester

APPEAL WON! Thanks so much for all your help. See text below

Successful
Assessor Name - Stephen Gordon
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the vehicle is on lease to him and he is the hirer for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under PoFA. The appellant states the notice issued fails to comply with PoFA. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant states as the hirer of the vehicle it is his right to choose not to name the driver. The appellant states that the signage was not clear, compliant or the wording on it easily visible which clearly contravenes the relevant law. The appellant states that the operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with the drivers using this particular car park.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant explains that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. The appellant states as the hirer of the vehicle it is his right to choose not to name the driver. In order to hold the appellant liable for the sum of the unpaid parking charge, the operator must comply to the requirements defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, sub-section 13. I note this states the creditor may not exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper, if within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – 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, a copy of the hire agreement; and a copy of a statement of liability, signed by the hirer under that agreement. The statement of liability required must contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer. I note that having extensively reviewed the operator’s evidence pack, it has not provided evidence in the form of a hire agreement or a copy of statement of liability signed by the hirer. Therefore, in the appellant’s case, the operator has not adhered to the requirements defined by PoFA 2012 in order to hold the hirer liable for the sum of the unpaid parking charge, as the driver has not been identified. In the absence of evidence which would demonstrate this, I am unable to establish whether the hirer is liable for the sum of the parking charge. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds within his appeal, however as I am allowing the appeal, there is no requirement to cover these.

Umkomaas

I note that having extensively reviewed the operator’s evidence pack, it has not provided evidence in the form of a hire agreement or a copy of statement of liability signed by the hirer.

None of them get that right, even the most administratively efficient.

A PCN to a vehicle hirer is virtually unenforceable, provided they keep themselves under the protection of PoFA by not identifying themselves as ‘the driver’.

Well done, good win. :T

Coupon-mad

As predicted but it's a relief when we don't get a stupid POPLA decision!

:T