Company Car - Need to Accept being driver to aleviate employer?

Coupon-mad

But you don't need to do that if you do what I advised as the Company, and if it is a BPA firm.  Which PPC?

Jambo27

Coupon-mad said:

What are you trying to appeal?  A PCN (notice to hirer) addressed to your employer?

Why not just appeal it using your email address but appealing as or on behalf of  your company, using the NTH 'ABC company' appeal by Edna_Basher in the NEWBIES thread?  Obviously you don't call the company 'ABC' company!

If this is a BPA parking firm you can't lose at POPLA if you take the stance that the NTH/PCN (same thing) had no enclosures.  And DO NOT SAY WHO WAS DRIVING! That wins at POPLA but you haven't said if it is a BPA AOS firm or an IPC one.  

But which PPC is it?

I've no idea where this is in the NEWBIES thread because it's ancient, don't use this:

Can see in the newbies section that some examples used:

* "I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers."

* Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013."

The text you say not to use in the first link in the Company Car section in the newbies page. The URL is https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5703794/civil-enforcement-and-a-lease-car-cancelled-the-pcn

--------------------------------

Yes they are BPA registered and have the logos on their notices. Also have checked the BPA register.

The document is entitled "Parking Charge Notice" and says " we have issed a parking charge notice to a vehicle you have been named as hiring". It doesn;t say the name of company who told them that.

Coupon-mad

Fine.  Do as I advised and you (the company) can't lose.

Umkomaas

Jambo27 said:

Jenni_D said:

Email back to your employer and request that they respond to the PPC and give your details as the allocated day-to-day keeper of the vehicle? (If it's like most company vehicles then they can't truthfully name you as the driver, as any eligible employee can drive any company car).

I know the car is assigned to me unless I gat asked to swap it or leave. So can assume it's Ok for other elegible empoyees to use. I do keep it all the time and use it as a perosnal car as well.

Will have a look at the car policy.

I wouldn't worry about that The PPC can't require access to that information. POPLA should cancel this if you follow @Coupon-mad's advice above. 

Jambo27

Coupon-mad said:

What are you trying to appeal?  A PCN (notice to hirer) addressed to your employer?

Why not just appeal it using your email address but appealing as or on behalf of  your company, using the NTH 'ABC company' appeal by Edna_Basher in the NEWBIES thread?  Obviously you don't call the company 'ABC' company!

If this is a BPA parking firm you can't lose at POPLA if you take the stance that the NTH/PCN (same thing) had no enclosures.  And DO NOT SAY WHO WAS DRIVING! That wins at POPLA but you haven't said if it is a BPA AOS firm or an IPC one.  

But which PPC is it?

I've no idea where this is in the NEWBIES thread because it's ancient, don't use this:

Can see in the newbies section that some examples used:

* "I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers."

* Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013."

Thank for the info Coupon Mad.

I made the appeal after you posted this.

So the appeal from Edna is based on the fact that the company did not include any evidence (or as you says "enclosures"). From looking at the POF2012, it looks like this is related to section 7, "When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10."

Is this the case?

Umkomaas

Jambo27 said:

Coupon-mad said:

What are you trying to appeal?  A PCN (notice to hirer) addressed to your employer?

Why not just appeal it using your email address but appealing as or on behalf of  your company, using the NTH 'ABC company' appeal by Edna_Basher in the NEWBIES thread?  Obviously you don't call the company 'ABC' company!

If this is a BPA parking firm you can't lose at POPLA if you take the stance that the NTH/PCN (same thing) had no enclosures.  And DO NOT SAY WHO WAS DRIVING! That wins at POPLA but you haven't said if it is a BPA AOS firm or an IPC one.  

But which PPC is it?

I've no idea where this is in the NEWBIES thread because it's ancient, don't use this:

Can see in the newbies section that some examples used:

* "I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers."

* Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013."

Thank for the info Coupon Mad.

I made the appeal after you posted this.

So the appeal from Edna is based on the fact that the company did not include any evidence (or as you says "enclosures"). From looking at the POF2012, it looks like this is related to section 7, "When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10."

Is this the case?

Paras 13 and 14 are the ones appropriate to hire/lease/company cars. 

Coupon-mad

Jambo27 said:

Coupon-mad said:

What are you trying to appeal?  A PCN (notice to hirer) addressed to your employer?

Why not just appeal it using your email address but appealing as or on behalf of  your company, using the NTH 'ABC company' appeal by Edna_Basher in the NEWBIES thread? 

Thank for the info Coupon Mad.

I made the appeal after you posted this.

So the appeal from Edna is based on the fact that the company did not include any evidence (or as you says "enclosures"). From looking at the POF2012, it looks like this is related to section 7, "When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10."

Is this the case?

Nope. There's nothing that's ever been prescribed in paragraph 10.

Not sure why you are looking for more than the EdnaBasher appeal already tells you? That appeal says what the enclosures are and which POFA paras apply.

Jambo27

@Coupon-mad

Looking again I see another one so I presume you mean the first one in this list below, is the one you are talking about?

1. I found one here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69957724/#Comment_69957724

"I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Highview Parking Ltd (“Highview”) 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.

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 Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

Given that Highview has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice."

2. And one here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74655930/#Comment_74655930

In a comment from Edna.

"We are in receipt of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") dated 8th August 2018 and issued by Topher Ltd to our company [ABC Ltd] ("[ABC]") in respect of an unpaid parking charge allegedly incurred at Homebase, Bath on 1st May 2018.

We confirm that ABC is the vehicle's hirer and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and we write to dispute this PCN.

Although the PCN states the reason for issue as "overstay", it provides no evidence to support this claim. In the absence of any conclusive evidence in support of the alleged breach, we trust you will agree that it would be unreasonable for Topher Ltd to expect us to pay this charge.

Notwithstanding this, the PCN failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently Topher Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from [ABC] as the vehicle's hirer and keeper.

Within 28 days please provide us with written confirmation of Topher Ltd's acceptance that it cannot and does not hold [ABC] liable for this parking charge and that this is now purely a matter between Topher Ltd and the driver."

Coupon-mad

I did say that a COMPANY appealing uses the one by ABC company (if you are appealing as the company).

You can see that the other one is for an individual who has been sent a NTH in their own name.

You can also see what the missing enclosures are because both those appeals state it.

Jambo27

Thought I'd update you all.

Permier Park rejected the appeal so will appeal to BPA with the following:

------------------------------------------------------

We are the hirer/leaser of the vehicle and appeal on the following grounds.

1). The operator has not complied with Schedule the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA').
2). The driver has not been named.

 

1). The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA').

In order to claim unpaid parking charges from vehicle's hirer they MUST comply with this Act.

Paragraph 14(2) specifies that as well as sending a Notice to Hirer, they must also send the documents listed in Paragraph 13(2) within the required time period:

Those documents listed in 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.


The Operator did not provide copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c), which are required to claim charges against the hirer.



2). At NO point during communications has the driver been named.