PCN for Long Hire Vehicle

StaffsSW

parkingproblems2019 wrote: »

Thank you StaffsSW,

It is a leased (long rental) so the company is not the keeper and not the V5 holder.

They have sent us a "Parking Charge Notice" addressed to the company name.

"We have received your details following a transfer of liability naming you as the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. If you were not the hirer (even though you have been named as being the hirer) of the the vehicle at the time it was parked or if the vehicle was stolen prior to the beginning of the period of parking which is the subject of this Notice, please let us know within 14 days of the date of this notice. If you were not the driver, please supply the full name and current serviceable postal address of the driver within 14 days of the date of this notice so that liability of the Parking Charge Notice may be transferred to the driver."

Please explain the "offer of POPLA to kill it dead"? Is this sounds good.

I'm very new to all of this, but must admit find it v interesting.

You can send back anything at all as an appeal, simply to get a POPLA code from them.

"Dear Horizon,

We dispute that parking charge is valid or enforceable due to lack of complaince with POFA 2012, therefore please supply a POPLA code by return,

luv n kisses"

When you get the POPLA code, then it is a case of putting the appeal in online.
You can put the usual "template" appeal points in on signage, landowner authority etc, but if you also put in that you are not the registered keeper, but the hirer and Horizon have not complied with

Paragraph 14 -(2)
The conditions are that—
(a)
the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice inaccordance 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;

It's a black and white matter of fact - if they didn';t send the correct documents, you (the company) can not be held liable as Hirer - therefore the charge is cancelled completely.


If you tell Horizon this at the first appeal, there is a risk they will go back to the leasing company - and most of them don't put up a fight, they just pay it and move on, but that opens a new can of worms between the leasing comapny and hirer, and there is no formal appeals process there!

Umkomaas

parkingproblems2019 wrote: »

I certainly can do. Should I add as more weight to the above letter?



It used to be pay and display, and now you have to go to a machine inside and put your reg in. Or get a PCN in the post via ANPR as we have

The first appeal is almost always rejected, no matter what 'weight' you add - don't bother.

If it is now a system of entering your VRM, did the NtK still say 'Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay'

Side note: I see that @StaffsSW has just responded. He's good at this stuff, he swats PPC flies for a living, as a fleet manager. Follow his advice.

parkingproblems2019

If it is now a system of entering your VRM, did the NtK still say 'Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay'

Yes it does

Umkomaas

parkingproblems2019 wrote: »

Yes it does

A point to make in any POPLA appeal.

parkingproblems2019

A point to make in any POPLA appeal

Please explain?

Umkomaas

parkingproblems2019 wrote: »

Please explain?

Their charge is for 'Failure to Pay', there was no prospect of being able to pay. It's a bit like getting a ticket while parking on double yellow lines which says reason for issue 'Exceeding the speed limit'.

C'mon, think about things before asking questions for which there's an obvious answer. This isn't a Q&A forum.

parkingproblems2019

Thanks, but you can pay via a machine where you type in your reg. As above

Umkomaas

parkingproblems2019 wrote: »

Thanks, but you can pay via a machine where you type in your reg. As above

Well you never said that previously. This is what you said in the context of paying anything:

It used to be pay and display, and now you have to go to a machine inside and put your reg in. Or get a PCN in the post via ANPR as we have

You must be clear about what it is you are telling us, or we'll all be chasing shadows, as I have just done over the past few hours!

Just forget anything I've said about inclusion in POPLA.

:doh:

Edna_Basher

StaffsSW wrote: »

You can send back anything at all as an appeal, simply to get a POPLA code from them.

"Dear Horizon,

We dispute that parking charge is valid or enforceable due to lack of complaince with POFA 2012, therefore please supply a POPLA code by return,

luv n kisses"

I agree with StaffsSW. Keep it simple because whatever you write Horizon will reject anyway.

StaffsSW wrote: »

It's a black and white matter of fact - if they didn't send the correct documents, you (the company) can not be held liable as Hirer - therefore the charge is cancelled completely.

That should be the case. However, things are not so black and white with POPLA these days; you will need to beware of the flawed advice on company vehicles issued by POPLA's so-called "sector expert" to his team of assessors - i.e. a presumption (even in the absence of any evidence) that the driver must have been a company employee and must have been on company business thereby binding their employer to a contractual agreement with the parking company.

It is more likely than not that a driver visiting a Sainsbury's supermarket would not be engaged on company business at the time. Unfortunately some of the weaker POPLA assessors do not understand this and are prone to regurgitating the "sector expert's" advice word-for-word, declaring that the driver was acting as the company's agent and that the parking company's non-compliance with POFA is therefore irrelevant.

StaffsSW

Edna_Basher wrote: »

That should be the case. However, things are not so black and white with POPLA these days; you will need to beware of the flawed advice on company vehicles issued by POPLA's so-called "sector expert" to his team of assessors - i.e. a presumption (even in the absence of any evidence) that the driver must have been a company employee and must have been on company business thereby binding their employer to a contractual agreement with the parking company.

It is more likely than not that a driver visiting a Sainsbury's supermarket would not be engaged on company business at the time. Unfortunately some of the weaker POPLA assessors do not understand this and are prone to regurgitating the "sector expert's" advice word-for-word, declaring that the driver was acting as the company's agent and that the parking company's non-compliance with POFA is therefore irrelevant.

I've now read the PPP thread from 2017 about it.

I wasn't aware of that policy, or their "sector expert" as it's quite rare that I engage in POPLA but when I do, I will usually refer to CPS v AJH Films to clarify the difference in our supply terms, so possibly they don't try that ruse if it has been rebuked in the initial appeal.