PCN - Parking Management Limited (UK)

bergkamp10

No other documents included in the Notice to Driver/Hirer. Just the notice. They mentioned that there was a ticket affixed to the vehicle which I am unaware of.

Also apparently the date of the original charge is on December 29th but they only sent out the NTH on March 11th. Not sure if that's something I can include or use in the above draft appeal.

Also in my original appeal I mentioned I will be appealing as the hirer but that  under PoFA I will be considered the keeper for correspondence purposes. Not sure if that was ok. I took it from one of the templates in the Newbies thread.

By the way, their letter rejecting the appeal came on March 19th. Does the 21 days end on 21 days from the 19th or 21 days from a certain number of days from service? Not sure if I have to submit this appeal by tonight or by the day after tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

March 19th? Do you mean April?  The 21 days is ONLY 21 days from the rejection, so tonight it your last moment.

bergkamp10

Ok will send it immediately then. Thanks.

bergkamp10

Actually, I was just about to submit the appeal on IAS website and they said I had until 14/5/2021 at 23:59 to submit the appeal. Strange. But yeah I think I'll give it until day after tomorrow to finalize the appeal. For now this is what I have put in the draft appeal.

"Dear Sir/Madam

Re: IAS Appeal Against PCN Number PC123456789 from Parking Control Management UK Ltd

I dispute their 'parking charge', as the hirer of the vehicle with VRM XX12 XXX. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I have already 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.

I have seen no evidence that PCM has acquired any of this information 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.

Also even if they had obtained this documentation from the Hire Company, PCM have not furnished any of this documentation when issuing their Notice to Hirer. 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.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn although PCM attempt to claim that they are assuming I was the driver with no physical evidence to support this assumption.

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,

Xxxxxx Xxxxxx"

Meanwhile I selected in the options

1) Am I being held liable? Yes or No? I put Yes

2) Am I the driver? Yes, no, or not prepared to say? I put not prepared to say.
3) Am I the keeper? Yes or No? I put Yes as when I originally put no they said I'd only be able to proceed if I was either the driver or the keeper.

Coupon-mad

Given that PCM has forfeited its right to keeper hirer liability by issuing an invalid Notice to Hirer, 

I'd change the above. 

I am concerned you have not suggested that PCM prove that their signs are clear and were legible that day/night.  Never let a PPC off having to show evidence of their signs and the alleged breach.

bergkamp10

Coupon-mad said:

Given that PCM has forfeited its right to keeper hirer liability by issuing an invalid Notice to Hirer, 

I'd change the above. 

I am concerned you have not suggested that PCM prove that their signs are clear and were legible that day/night.  Never let a PPC off having to show evidence of their signs and the alleged breach.

I can add that back. It was there originally but removed it when I was about to be late to submit as it still addressed the PPC rather than IAS. I'll reword it and add it back.

I just thought the main source of appeal was the invalid NTH but yeah, more points of defence could be useful.

Thanks

bergkamp10

Fruitcake said:

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.

Just notice as I was going through the appeal that although I was appealing as the hirer I did mention for the purposes of POFA definitions I was hirer. I used the following text from the template.

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner. 

I subsequently request all future correspondence be sent directly to myself at the address listed below: 

Xxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxx

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. 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. "

Not sure if that changes things somewhat. Just realised and thought I'd share.

bergkamp10

Just heard back from IAS that PCM have submitted additional information and will not be proceeding with the charge notice and that they have agreed to cancel the charge.

Thanks everyone. Much appreciated.

Umkomaas

Nice one. PCM really don't like haven't to put in any effort to pursue their case through the IAS, even though they would be pushing at a well-oiled and wide-open door. Appealing a PCM charge with the IAS is increasingly becoming forum advice. 

A monkey off your back. Well done. 👍

bergkamp10

Umkomaas said:

Nice one. PCM really don't like haven't to put in any effort to pursue their case through the IAS, even though they would be pushing at a well-oiled and wide-open door. Appealing a PCM charge with the IAS is increasingly becoming forum advice. 

A monkey off your back. Well done. 👍

Thanks mate. You guys have all been very helpful and I couldn't have done it without you all. So thanks again.
Just got the following left:
1. Excel PCN (that should hopefully be resolved by Iceland) and
2. Another PCM PCN from some time ago that was finally delivered to me as a final warning from their lawyers. The letter had an incorrect postcode. Should I create a thread for that one or just wait?