Hire Vehicle - Carflow Won't Recognise Hirer

ali4390

I paid for parking from 16:37 - I was in a motorhome and so by the time I'd parked and sorted the gas etc it was 16:37. I paid for one hour and I left the car park at 17:38.

My biggest problem is how do I get the company to liaise with me now that the registered keeper is being a sensitive soul and not helping.

ali4390

Would this email be okay to send to try and get them to deal with me directly?

Dear Carflow,

I am writing regarding PCN reference 2000105498.

I understand that the registered keeper has now confirmed to you that I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event on 28 June 2026.

I therefore confirm personally that I was the driver.

I appreciate that you have stated that the later identification of the driver does not retrospectively satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 paragraph 13 concerning transfer of liability from a registered keeper of a hired vehicle. I am not asking you to treat the subsequent identification as retrospective compliance with paragraph 13.

Rather, as the driver has now been identified, I ask that you correspond with me directly as the driver concerning the alleged parking charge and provide me with the opportunity to appeal the charge in that capacity.

I dispute that the fact that the registered keeper did not provide the paragraph 13 documentation within your stated timeframe gives you a basis to refuse to deal with the identified driver in relation to the underlying parking charge.

Your current position appears to distinguish between the question of statutory keeper liability and the underlying liability of the driver. I am asking you to address the latter directly with me.

Please therefore:

confirm that you have recorded me as the identified driver;

confirm that future correspondence concerning the alleged driver's liability will be addressed to me at this email address;

provide me with the procedure by which I may appeal the PCN as the identified driver; and

if you maintain that you will nevertheless pursue the registered keeper rather than the identified driver, please explain the legal and/or BPA Code basis on which you say you are entitled to do so despite now knowing the identity and address for service of the driver.

For the avoidance of doubt, my confirmation that I was the driver is not an admission that the parking charge is valid or that I am liable to pay it. I reserve my position in relation to the alleged breach, the contractual terms, signage, the applicable grace/observation periods, and all other grounds of appeal.

If you refuse to accept an appeal from me as the identified driver, please provide the POPLA verification code associated with PCN 2000105498 and confirm the date from which you say the 28-day POPLA appeal period runs.

I look forward to your response.

kryten3000

I would refer them to the CMA letter sent to the MHCLG on the subject of when a parking period starts:

"We have also seen evidence that suggests that where consumers decide, within
the consideration period, to park, operators are treating the parking period as
having commenced at the moment the consumer drove into the car park, rather
than at the point they decided to park. In consequence, consumers may not enjoy
the full period of parking that they should be entitled to."

The CMA recommends adding the full consideration period (5-10 minutes) to the (10 minute) grace period and for operators not to issue charges unless this combined period is exceeded.

yarpsnehpets

Note 221 from the POFA Explanatory Notes states the following;

Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

ali4390

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82126263#Comment_82126263

I've been reading POFA today and dont think the quoted will help me.

The full text of paragraph 4(7) says: "The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13 (which provides for the right not to apply in certain circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle)."

The general "can't pursue keeper if driver known" principle actually comes from paragraph 5(1)(b) — but paragraph 5(2) closes it off in exactly this scenario: "Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper."

Car1980

But the creditor has not begun proceedings ie. made a court claim.

Coupon-mad

Yep you are wrong. We know the POFA inside out! As @Car1980 says, no proceedings have commenced.

yarpsnehpets

I agree with the last two comments - proceedings means a County Court Claim - that has not occurred yet.

As a result, the opposite of your reasoning occurs since the operator has been provided with the driver details BEFORE proceedings have begun - therefore, the keeper cannot be pursued.

That is backed up by the wording I highlighted from Note 221.

James_Poisson

Parking companies are rogues that apply every rule or law to their own interpretation to benefit them not you, don't get taken in, follow the advice of the regulars on here.

Car1980

Yes, the 28 time period before which they cannot hold the keeper liable is NOT a 28 time period after which liability is fixed to the keeper. They'll often lie about it and fraudulently claim liability cannot be transferred after 28 days.