Recently emigrated | No notice from PPC | Only rental co. email

Coupon-mad

Ah OK. I misunderstood, sorry.

Is Gran primed and ready to tell you when it arrives and NOT TO APPEAL in her own words in a panic? 

1505grandad

As above and of course she MUST NOT pay this if in the same panic.

BikingBud

Could there be an issue with Gran as hirer but other parties actually driving? Did the hire agreement cover/allow this?

KeithP

BikingBud said:

Could there be an issue with Gran as hirer but other parties actually driving?

No. The vehicle was driven away from Enterprise by someone other than Gran (Gran was driving her own car), so Enterprise knew someone else was the driver.

BikingBud said:

Did the hire agreement cover/allow this?

Doesn't matter. Not relevant to the matter in hand.

FeedThemCake

Coupon-mad said:

Ah OK. I misunderstood, sorry.

Is Gran primed and ready to tell you when it arrives and NOT TO APPEAL in her own words in a panic? 

No worries.

Yes, I am making contact with her about this and will try to explain that there's no need to stress and that I'm handling it.

Thanks again, will update once the NtH arrives.

FeedThemCake

KeithP said:

BikingBud said:

Could there be an issue with Gran as hirer but other parties actually driving?

No. The vehicle was driven away from Enterprise by someone other than Gran (Gran was driving her own car), so Enterprise knew someone else was the driver.

BikingBud said:

Did the hire agreement cover/allow this?

Doesn't matter. Not relevant to the matter in hand.

That's correct, I am listed as the additional driver on the contract.

FeedThemCake

UPDATE:

My gran let me know this weekend that the PCN arrived in the mail. It was addressed to her, as expected, and it arrived on Friday 20/10/2023.

Parking Contravention date: 27/07/2023
Parking Charge Notice issue date: 14/08/2023

Given the above, I would like to go ahead and appeal on behalf of my gran, which she's happy for me to do.
Of the two options, I would feel more comfortable opting for the more tried and tested approach using the Edna Basher template, i.e. without naming the driver and giving my foreign address etc. To me, that latter option seems a bit more unpredictable and there's a chance I'd mess something up in my choice of words. On the website, Smart Parking recommend providing documentation to support claims about another driver having driven the vehicle etc.

The following adaption of the Edna Basher template is what I have prepared. Please let me know if this is fine 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [XY12CDE]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Smart Parking Ltd (“Smart Parking”) 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 Smart Parking’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may fully understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular. At the most basic level, however, the above-detailed PCN, having been issued on 14/08/2023, is not in accordance with even the most elementary requirements outlined in Paragraph 9(5), Schedule 4 of POFA, which clearly states that the Notice to Keeper must be issued within 14 days of the date of the specified period of parking.

Given that Smart Parking 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.


Yours faithfully,

<Good ol’ Granny>

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

Thanks in advance for the advice.

KeithP

But a Notice to Hirer simply cannot arrive with the hirer within fourteen days of the parking event.
The parking company must first send a Notice to Keeper to the Registered Keeper and the fourteen days only applies to that notice.

That '14 days' business was pointed out in the first reply on this thread.

Suggest you remove that sentence starting "At the most basic level...".

Coupon-mad

This is wrong, it's not the August Notice that arrived at granny's house:

"the above-detailed PCN, having been issued on 14/08/2023"

FeedThemCake

KeithP said:

But a Notice to Hirer simply cannot arrive with the hirer within fourteen days of the parking event.
The parking company must first send a Notice to Keeper to the Registered Keeper and the fourteen days only applies to that notice.

That '14 days' business was pointed out in the first reply on this thread.

Suggest you remove that sentence starting "At the most basic level...".

The PCN, same as their online system, lists the "issue date" as the 14/08/2023, which I assume refers to when the process was started on their end and a NtK to the Registered Keeper was sent. While it's a bit ambiguous, to my mind it can't possibly refer to anything else, as the first I heard of any of this was at the end of September, when the rental agency emailed me. The date of the parking "offence" was 27/07/2023. There is no date indicating when the PCN as a NtH was posted, which I suspect is on purpose, but it arrived on 20/10/2023.

So while there is no need to issue the NtH within 14 days, I checked POFA and it seems pretty clear that the initial NtK does have to adhere to that requirement.

But I'm certainly no expert on any of this -- if you really think in spite of the above reasoning that it would be better to leave it out, I'll do that.

Cheers