PCN paid for by leasing company

Coupon-mad

Just do what I advised already.

LDast

Interesting that there is no mention n the NtK about what the Keeper should if the vehicle is Hired/Leased to a third party and how to transfer liability to the Hirer. Not a priority but certainly worth a complaint to the BPA and for @Coupon-mad to show as evidence of the rotten practices of some of these vermin companies.

The word "Hire" is used 19 times in the new Joint CoP. Devious of G24 not to use it once in their NtK. The man on the Clapham Omnibus might come to the conclusion that this is a deliberate ploy to get dim-witted fleet managers to simply pay up and charge back to the Hirers/Lessees whilst G24 laugh all the way to the bank.

travellover123

Coupon-mad said:

I would just use the authority letter the lease firm gave you and upload that & appeal as ADMITTED DRIVER to hook the case to you.

Is the following okay? Do I need to add a line about being the driver? I thought we were not supposed to name the driver at any point? 

Thank you

“Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by G24 Limited as a Notice to Keeper. 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 G24’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 G24 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 (IAS), their contact details and a unique IAS appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to IAS.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the IPC Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,”

LDast

You don't seem to have quite "got it". You are not and never were the Keeper of the vehicle. The Lease/Hire company is the Keeper of the vehicle. You are only the Hirer of the vehicle. Neither the Lease/Hire company nor the PPC know who the driver is. The driver is unknown and only the driver can be liable for the charge.

If the PPC had sent you, the Hirer, a Notice to Hirer, as long as they complied with all the requirements of PoFA paragraphs 13 and 14, which they haven't, they could have transferred the unknown drivers liability to the known Hirer. As the Hirer is under no legal obligation to reveal the identity of the driver to an unregulated private parking company, they should decline to do so. The burden of proof is on the PPC to prove that the Hirer was also the driver and the only way they could do that is if the Hirer blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

So, the PPC has not issued a proper NtK (Keeper) because they have not explained what the Keeper should if the vehicle has been Hired. A proper NtK would have explained how the Keeper can transfer liability to the Hirer. Once that liability had been transferred, they PPC should then have sent the Hirer a Notice to Hirer, together with copies of all the documents mentioned in PoFA, which they never do. As they fail to include those documents, they cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Hirer.

As the PPC has failed to properly issue the Hirer with a valid NtH but have sent a NtK and the Hirer has a letter of authority from the Hire/Lease company to act in its name, you have to argue the points I have made above in your "appeal".

KeithP

LDast said:

You are not and never were the Keeper of the vehicle.

Oh... that is rather different to the understanding we are used to seeing here.

POFA Sch4 defines 'keeper' as...

• “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

Those words "is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved" provide the opening needed.

I think it would be quite easy in the case of a leased vehicle to be able to prove that the lessee was in fact the keeper of the vehicle.

I am sure this has been confirmed in court, but I'll have to leave it to others to demonstrate that.

LDast

My bad. I should have said "registered keeper" (RK). An NtK is only sent to the RK. An NtK is not compliant with PoFA if it is sent to the Hirer (or "keeper" for arguments sake).

PoFA defines the "keeper" of a vehicle in two ways:

1. Registered Keeper: The person who is registered with the DVLA as the keeper of the vehicle.
2. Hirer: The person who hires the vehicle for a period of time under a hire agreement.

According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 13, if the vehicle is hired out under a "relevant hire agreement," the hirer of the vehicle can become the "keeper" for the purposes of parking charges if:

• The parking operator has issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper. (Complied with)
• The registered keeper has identified the hirer and provided the hirer's details to the parking operator. (Complied with)
• The parking operator then issues a Notice to Hirer (NTH) to the hirer in compliance with the requirements set out in PoFA, including sending the notice within the specified timescale and including all required information. (Definitely not complied with)

In this context, the hirer is treated as the "keeper" for the purpose of liability under PoFA if these conditions are met. These conditions have not been met.

In the context of PoFA, "driver," "keeper," and "hirer" are defined separately because they represent different roles and responsibilities related to the vehicle and its use.

Driver: The person who is driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event. This person is responsible for complying with parking terms and conditions at the time the alleged contravention occurs.

Keeper: Under PoFA, the "keeper" is the registered keeper of the vehicle (the person whose name is on the DVLA record). However, the term is broadened to include a hirer in certain cases. The keeper can be liable for paying parking charges if the parking operator has followed the correct procedure to notify them. (they haven't)

Hirer: This refers to someone who has rented or leased the vehicle under a hire agreement. In the context of PoFA, a hirer can be treated as the keeper for the purpose of liability if the parking operator has properly notified both the registered keeper and the hirer. (they haven't)

By defining these roles separately, PoFA ensures that the correct person is held liable for any parking charges. The driver at the time of the event is directly responsible for adhering to parking terms, while the keeper or hirer may be held financially responsible for any charges if they are properly notified. (they weren't).

So, if a PPC sends an NtK to the hirer instead of the registered keeper, it is not valid under PoFA. The PPC should include information in the NtK on the procedure for keeper to transfer liability if the vehicle is hired under an agreement.

Whilst the BPA, IPC and new Joint CoP do not explicitly require the NtK to include information about how to handle a hired vehicle, they do provide general guidelines for dealing with hire vehicles. Although the NtK itself is not explicitly required to include hire-related details, the CoPs do expect that the PPC will follow a proper process once they are aware the vehicle is hired. The failure to provide clear instructions on what to do in case of a hire vehicle should be seen as a failure to comply with best practices outlined in the CoP.

The absence of information on handling hired vehicles in the NtK can lead to confusion for the registered keeper (hire company) and improper management of the PCN. If the registered keeper is unaware of how to handle the charge due to insufficient information, it could be argued that the PPC has not provided a clear and fair process, which can be viewed as a failure to adhere to best practices.

So, even if the NtK is not legally required to provide specific hire-related information, the CoPs emphasise fairness and clear communication. The argument can be made that best practice involves providing all the necessary information to ensure that the registered keeper can effectively manage the parking charge, especially when dealing with hired vehicles.

If, as in this case, the PPC has been notified that the vehicle was hired, even though the correct process may not have been followed, once the PPC receives this information, they must issue a Notice to Hirer (NTH) to the hirer under Paragraph 14. They didn't. They sent another NtK, instead of an NtH. No Hirer liability.

travellover123

LDast said:
If, as in this case, the PPC has been notified that the vehicle was hired, even though the correct process may not have been followed

I'm not sure if they have been notified? 
Not with this new PCN at least, as the leasing company has simply notified me of the PCN and given me a letter of authority to use to contact them myself. 

With the other two PCNs (which the leasing company paid), those I "appealed" and so notified the PPC that I am hiring the vehicle. But my appeal was after this new PCN was issued and I'm not sure if the appeals from the other two would apply to this one? I am yet to hear back from those appeals.

travellover123

Can I appeal with the below:

"I would like to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on [Date of PCN], for the vehicle registration number [Vehicle Registration Number]. As the hirer of this vehicle, as confirmed by the attached Letter of Authority from the leasing company, I believe that the PCN was issued in error due to non-compliance with the requirements set out in PoFA.

Upon reviewing the Notice to Keeper (NtK), it is apparent that it does not comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA, specifically in relation to the handling of vehicles that have been hired. A compliant NtK should have included clear instructions on how the Keeper can transfer liability to the Hirer. As you are aware, once the liability has been transferred to the Hirer, a Notice to Hirer must be sent, accompanied by all the documents required under PoFA.

However, in this case, you have failed to provide the necessary documents which are crucial to rely on PoFA’s provisions for transferring liability from the Keeper to the Hirer. As these documents were not included, you cannot legally transfer liability to me as the Hirer under the terms of PoFA.

Furthermore, best practice involves providing all relevant information to ensure that the registered keeper can manage the parking charge effectively, particularly in cases involving hired vehicles. The failure to follow these procedures undermines the validity of this PCN.

Given the above points, I request that you cancel this PCN immediately, as the correct legal process has not been followed. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), their contact details and a unique IAS appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to IAS.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,"

Also what if G24 after reciving this, send me the notice to hirer with all the necessary documents? 

travellover123

Thank you all for your help again!

Apologies this is all very new and complicated for me.

Coupon-mad

I'd appeal as driver which is what I said all along. Everything you are drafting gives G24 an excuse to revert to the lease firm.

Appealing as driver and attaching the authority letter ends that possibility and hooks the scam under your full control.