PCN paid for by leasing company

travellover123

Oh also, as expected, G24 have rejected one of my original two appeals as it’s been paid. 

travellover123

This is the email I have drafted for my leasing company:

"I am writing raise a complaint regarding your recent handling of the two parking charge notices (PCNs) from G24 associated with my lease agreement [0123456789] & [0123456789]. The charges in question were paid directly by [Leasing Company’s Name] instead of nominating me as the driver, which is a clear breach of BVRLA Memorandum of Understanding, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and my consumer rights as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It is my understanding that under the BVRLA guidelines, leasing companies are advised to nominate the hirer as the responsible party when receiving PCNs, thereby passing the liability directly to the driver as required by the PoFA. By paying these charges directly, [Leasing Company’s Name] has admitted liability by conduct, which could have been avoided had you correctly followed the BVRLA guidelines and the legal requirements under the PoFA.

It is clear that you are aware of the guidelines as in the case of a third PCN issued by G24, you did not pay it but instead forwarded it to me (Ref: [Reference Number]), along with a Letter of Authority, as G24 does not permit you to nominate me as the hirer.

After receiving the two invoices, I contacted your team on the same day and was advised to appeal online immediately, as the payment had been sent by post and might not have been received yet. I followed these instructions and submitted online appeals for both PCNs on the same day. However, G24 has since responded, stating that the parking charges have been paid and that the cases are now closed (see attached).

Paying the first two PCNs has not only wrongly attributed liability to your company but has also denied me my fundamental right to challenge the charges, appeal, or seek ADR. These are rights protected under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which ensures consumers are afforded reasonable opportunities to contest and resolve disputes before payment is enforced.

I am  therefore requesting the following actions be taken immediately:

1. Cancellation of the two invoices [0123456789] & [0123456789] and payments scheduled for DD/MM/YYYY.
2. Confirmation that any future PCNs received under my lease agreement will be handled in accordance with the correct procedures, including nominating me as the driver.

Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I will have no choice but to escalate the complaint to the BVRLA and consider other appropriate legal remedies.

I look forward to your prompt response to this matter.

Yours sincerely,"

 

LDast

...instead of nominating me as the driver...

How can the lease company nominate you as the driver? Just like G24, they have no idea who was the driver at the time. I don't think you have quite got your head around the issue. Also...

...leasing companies are advised to nominate the hirer as the responsible party when receiving PCNs, thereby passing the liability directly to the driver as required by the PoFA.

Again, nobody is passing liability to the driver. Only the Hirer/Lessee can say who the driver is. Whilst you have been advised to admit liability as the driver, normally these are easily defeated when appealing as the Hirer and not disclosing the identity of the driver. Additionally, you will need to point out to the morons that there is a significant difference between a Penalty Charge Notice (although more commonly called simply Penalty Notice) and a Parking Charge Notice. It is shocking to see the level of incompetence displayed by the lease company.

Whilst the advice you received to tell G24 the drivers identity and appeal as such was made to try and prevent the dim-witted eejits at the lease company paying the other PCNs and you being charged by them, I think you would have been better off letting them do that and then sue the backside off them for all the reasons already pointed out. You could have told your bank to reverse any direct debit or card company to chargeback any money taken from your account and then gone into dispute with the lease company for their obvious failure to follow the required protocol and breach of their own contract and their ATA guidelines.

The correct procedure is NOT to nominate you as the driver but to nominate you as the Hirer. Once they have done that, they are no longer liable and the ball is in your court where it is easily defeated. Not so anymore.

travellover123

Oh apologies, I didn't even realise I wrote driver! I understand they can't nominate me as the driver, I’ll change that to 'Hirer'. 

I did consider that, have the leasing company pay and then just charge my money back and that way I don't have to worry about G24 chasing me or any court cases but I'm not well versed in this topic at all so chose to follow the advice I received from experts. 

If the leasing company don't cancel the two direct debits due to come out of my account soon (may even be too late to cancel it), I will get my bank to reverse it. 

travellover123

"I am writing raise a complaint regarding your recent handling of the two parking charge notices (PCNs) from G24 associated with my lease agreement [0123456789] & [0123456789]. The charges in question were paid directly by [Leasing Company’s Name] instead of nominating me as the hirer, which is a clear breach of BVRLA Memorandum of Understanding, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and my consumer rights as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It is my understanding that under the BVRLA guidelines, leasing companies are advised to nominate the hirer as the responsible party when receiving PCNs, thereby passing the liability directly to the hirer as required by the PoFA. By paying these charges directly, [Leasing Company’s Name] has admitted liability by conduct, which could have been avoided had you correctly followed the BVRLA guidelines and the legal requirements under the PoFA.

It is clear that you are aware of the guidelines as in the case of a third PCN issued by G24, you did not pay it but instead forwarded it to me (Ref: [Reference Number]), along with a Letter of Authority, as G24 does not permit you to nominate me as the hirer.

After receiving the two invoices, I contacted your team on the same day and was advised to appeal online immediately, as the payment had been sent by post and might not have been received yet. I followed these instructions and submitted online appeals for both PCNs on the same day. However, G24 has since responded, stating that the parking charges have been paid and that the cases are now closed (see attached).

Paying the first two PCNs has not only wrongly attributed liability to your company but has also denied me my fundamental right to challenge the charges, appeal, or seek ADR. These are rights protected under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which ensures consumers are afforded reasonable opportunities to contest and resolve disputes before payment is enforced.

I would also like to clarify the difference between a Penalty Notice and a Parking Charge Notice or Parking Notice, as there appears to be some confusion between these two types of charges on your end. You have referred to the three Parking Notice’s I’ve received as "Penalty notice’s" multiple times including in the Letter of Authority you have provided.

A Penalty Notice is issued by public authorities or law enforcement, such as local councils, police, or Transport for London (TfL). These notices are typically issued for breaches of traffic regulations, such as parking violations, driving in bus lanes, or speeding.

Penalty Notices are legally enforceable under statutory law. If not paid, they can lead to formal legal proceedings, and payment is mandatory unless successfully appealed.

Whereas a Parking Charge Notice is a charge issued by private parking companies for alleged breaches of terms and conditions on private land, such as overstaying a permitted parking time or parking without a valid ticket.

Parking Charge Notices are essentially invoices for breach of contract. They are not legally enforceable in the same way as Penalty Notices unless a court orders payment. Private parking companies must follow the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if they wish to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable.

For Penalty Notices, the registered keeper is often held liable, whereas for Parking Charge Notices, liability can only be transferred to the driver or hirer if certain conditions under PoFA are met.

G24 have issued three Parking Charge Notices which are NOT enforceable under statutory law,

I am  therefore requesting the following actions be taken immediately:

1. Cancellation of the two invoices [0123456789] & [0123456789] and payments scheduled for DD/MM/YYYY.
2. Confirmation that any future PCNs received under my lease agreement will be handled in accordance with the correct procedures, including nominating me as the hirer.

Should this matter not be resolved satisfactorily, I will have no choice but to escalate the complaint to the BVRLA and consider other appropriate legal remedies.

I look forward to your prompt response to this matter.

Yours sincerely,"

LDast

Not quite...

...as G24 does not permit you to nominate me as the hirer.

It is not up to G24 to NOT permit the keeper to nominate the Hirer. Their ATA CoP tells them exactly what they must do if they receive a nomination from the keeper that the vehicle is on hire/lease and they are provided with the Hirers details. If G24 told porkies to the lease company, then the lease company can take it up with G24.

I would also like to clarify the difference between a Penalty Notice and a Parking Charge Notice or Parking Notice, as there appears to be some confusion between these two types of charges on your end. You have referred to the three Parking Notice’s I’ve received as "Penalty notice’s" multiple times including in the Letter of Authority you have provided.

Please try and get the detail correct. PCN = Parking Charge Notice. PN = Penalty Notice. There is no Penalty Charge Notice although many people, including the morons at the lease company have assumed that the P in PCN means Penalty. It doesn't.

Private parking companies must follow the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if they wish to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable.

Change that to "...vehicle’s keeper or Hirer liable."

Fruitcake

Also note that for IPC members, the IPC have stated on X that it is a moral duty for parking companies to install typo-proof machines. Typo proof machines would prevent a motorist from entering an incorrect VRM. Of course, just because the IPC say their members should install these machines as a moral duty doesn't mean that they will, simply because it will reduce their income. 
They don't want to do that.
They won't do that.

If you do appeal where the driver has entered an incorrect VRM, this point should be raised, and a complaint made to them then the IPC, even though it will be a waste of your time.

You should also complain to your MP about the PPC, their failure to comply with their trade association's instructions where applicable, and about the hire company and their failings. All this is due to the government's failure to implement the new parking code of practice/conduct, so ask when the new government is going to rectify this problem that affects 12 million motorists a year.

The International Parking Community (IPC)

@_TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below)

@_TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of #typoproof #parking payment systems as a moral duty. #mondaythoughts https://cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=136601&headline=New%20parking%20ticket%20machines%20a%20%E2%80%98humiliating%20experience%E2%80%99%20for%20some&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2021

Gr1pr

travellover123 said:

G24 have issued three Parking Charge Notices which are NOT enforceable under statutory law,

Not true, they may well be enforceable under the current laws in England and Wales, against the defendant, but only a judge can decide that, in civil court, once all the facts are known to that court and if various aspects are complied with , that defendant may be the registered keeper, may be the hirer, may be the driver , liability must be established before enforceability 

LDast

Not quite correct. G24 is a private parking company, and the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue are not covered by statutory law in the same way that penalties from government authorities are. Instead, they are considered under civil law as a form of breach of contract.

Statutory law, in the context of parking, applies to Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities or government bodies, which are enforceable under statutes like the Road Traffic Act 1991 or the Traffic Management Act 2004. PCNs issued by private companies such as G24 are enforceable under civil law, based on the principle that by parking on private land, the driver agrees to the terms and conditions set out by the landowner or its agent.

PCNs issued by private companies are not automatically enforceable. For G24 to enforce a PCN, they need to demonstrate in court that a contract was formed, that its terms were clearly displayed, and that the motorist breached those terms. This is a matter of civil law, not statutory law.

If the statement suggesting that the PCNs are not enforceable "under statutory law," this is technically correct, as private PCNs are not enforced through statutory law but rather through the civil court system.

So, to make the statement clearer and more accurate, it should really be rephrased as: “G24 have issued three Parking Charge Notices which are not automatically enforceable under statutory law, as they are subject to civil law and require court action for enforcement.” 

Gr1pr

As above, the original statement by the OP was flawed, I tried to critique it but the reply and rejigging by Ldast was better. (  So a much better statement )