PCN - Parking Management Limited (UK)

Coupon-mad

I would do an IAS appeal, because it's PCM and they are not very good at contesting appeals. 

Obviously the NTK wasn't sent to the driver.  It was sent to the hirer.

bergkamp10

Coupon-mad said:

I would do an IAS appeal, because it's PCM and they are not very good at contesting appeals. 

Obviously the NTK wasn't sent to the driver.  It was sent to the hirer.

Thanks for the repsons CouponMad. Just a question, in they mention that the NTK went to hire firm first and then to the hirer I should use the appeal in the link. Is that the appeal you suggest to use or is is some other appeal?

Coupon-mad

Don't copy a template but if that one worked then you could learn from it.  IAS appeals can sometimes be won on points of law or evidence.

You seem to miss the point - you should know the NTK went to the hire firm then the hirer (not the driver).

bergkamp10

I understand. Thanks. I used the terminology wrong when paraphrasing the thread.

I only brought it up because the newbie thread says that IAS are almost always siding with the PPCs and there's no point appealing there considering a fail would later be an added thing to overcome if this ever goes to claim stage.

So what do you think I should include in any appeal. Your origunak suggestion was to appeal before I linked the thread so we're there specific legal grounds you were thinking I should use?

Also, you said not to copy the template and learn from it. I'm reading it now and will see what else I can get from there.

Coupon-mad

we're there specific legal grounds you were thinking I should use?

You seem to miss the point every time I said it:

 the NTK went to the hire firm then the hirer (not the driver).

You are missing the importance of that part of the POFA.  Surely you used Edna Basher's initial appeal for hirers?  If you read that, then you know the law and what it says if you used that appeal version from the NEWBIES thread.

Fruitcake

The NTK went to the hire company.
If the hire company did their job properly, they would have given the hirer's details to the scammers.
The scammers should then have sent a NTH to the hirer, not a NTK. Looking back I see that they did.
You should then have appealed as hirer using the relevant edna basher template letters.
Upon rejection, you now use the strict requirements of the PoFA to win. I doubt the scammers will have complied with para 14 of the PoFA because they are unlikely to have included the mandatory documents requited, which are referred to in par 14 and specified in para 13.

Hopefully you did not appeal as keeper, but as hirer. Please confirm this.

As for Elliot vs Loake, this has been rubbished in court so many times that it is ridiculous for scammers to still use it. It was a criminal case where the prosecution had physical forensic evidence that proved the keeper was the driver.
You could refer to their mention of the case and ask what physical forensic evidence they have since that case turned on this, not on any kind of assumption.

Fruitcake

From the PoFA 2012 

14 (1) If —

(a) the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and

(b) the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met,

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance 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;

The documents mentioned in para 13 (2) are: -

(a) 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;

(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

If the scammers have not sent you the documents detailed above, they have failed the strict requirements of the PoFA, and therefore have failed to hold the hirer liable.

bergkamp10

Ok guys. I understand. I included bits of that info in the appeal and directed the PPC to check the paras 13 and 14 of PoFA. In the next appeal I will include the exact clauses as quoted above.

Yes I did appeal as hirer previously and not as keeper. Also they did not send me an NTK they sent me a Notice to Driver/Hirer. Not sure if that makes any difference.

I will draft another appeal using the previous appeal with the added bits that fruitcake added and will revert back this evening. Thank you.

bergkamp10

So I have drafted the following draft IAS Appeal. Kindly let me know if this is ok and whether I need to add or remove anything. Thanks.
"XXXXXX XXXXXXX

123 XXXXXXX Road

XXXXXXX

London

United Kingdom

XXX XXX

Dear Sir/Madam 

Re: IAS Appeal Against PCN Number PCXXXXXXXXX from Parking Control Management UK Ltd 

I dispute their 'parking charge', as the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I have alread made an appeal to Parking Control Management UK Ltd (PCM) which they have rejected. 

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Parking Control Management UK Ltd (“PCM”) as a Notice to Hirer. As this is a hire vehicle, it's position is covered by the paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule IV of PoFA. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), I am formally challenging the validity of this PCN. 

I have informed PCM of the strict requirements of Schedule IV of POFA that need 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 PCM's Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA. 

From the PoFA 2012, Para 14 of Schedule IV states 

14 (1) If — 

(a) the creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and 

(b) the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met, 

the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. 

(2) The conditions are that— 

(a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance 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; 

The documents mentioned in para 13 (2) are: - 

(a) 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; 

(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and 

(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. 

PCM have not furnished any of this documentation when issuing their Notice to Hirer and as such their Notice to Hirer is missing key information that should have been included for the Notice to Hirer be valid. Without this documentation included in the Notice to Hirer, then it is without doubt that it is invalid as it fails to adhere to the strict requirements of PoFA. 

The start point of this process is that PCM should have sought information from the hire company. Should the hire company wish to avoid liability for the unpaid parking charges they should have provided the following:- 

(a) 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; 

(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and 

(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. 

I have seen no evidence that PCM has acquired any of this information I. The first place from the hire company. This is important because Parliament clearly had in mind that the hirer of a vehicle should not be held responsible for unpaid parking charges, unless there was an agreement, signed by the hirer, accepting responsibility for those charges during the period of hire. 

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. 

Further, I understand PCM does not own the car park and they have furnished no information about their policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to issue such a parking charge. I have requested PCM to supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 however have not been supplied with that information. 

Once again there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. 

Given that PCM has forfeited its right to keeper liability by issuing an invalid Notice to Hirer, I believe that this "parking charge" should be cancelled. 

Yours faithfully, 

XXXX XXXXX"

Fruitcake

bergkamp10 said:

Ok guys. I understand. I included bits of that info in the appeal and directed the PPC to check the paras 13 and 14 of PoFA. In the next appeal I will include the exact clauses as quoted above.

Yes I did appeal as hirer previously and not as keeper. Also they did not send me an NTK they sent me a Notice to Driver/Hirer. Not sure if that makes any difference.

I will draft another appeal using the previous appeal with the added bits that fruitcake added and will revert back this evening. Thank you.

It makes it easier to appeal as hirer/lessee rather than day to day keeper or registered keeper, because scammers seem to be congenitally incapable of following the PoFA where a hire/lease car is concerned.

Did the scammers include the docs detailed in para 13 (2) with the NTH? IF not then they cannot hold the hirer liable. They cannot assume the hirer was the driver either.