Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 9th Feb 18, 10:50 AM
    • 23Posts
    • 11Thanks
    peacock403
    Notice to hirer with no option for appeal
    • #1
    • 9th Feb 18, 10:50 AM
    Notice to hirer with no option for appeal 9th Feb 18 at 10:50 AM
    I have read the detailed newbies forum and have found the basis of appeal which I could use but would like a bit more help.

    I have received several notice to hirer letters dated this Jan 2018 that state I have lost the opportunity to appeal. They relate to PCNs from Sept to Dec 2017. Do I still go ahead and write to them using Edna Basher!!!8217;s letter to get them cancelled based on the POFA 13 and 14?
    The last response the PPC had from the lease firm with all the documents was sent out on 10/01/18 and I received the NTDs after the 21 days. The first was sent out to the ppc in Oct 17. I never received anything before this January. The vehicle is on a salary sacrifice scheme. Do I need to mention that I have not been given the right to appeal?

    The first contact with them was via a telephone call in January this year to my partner on his mobile asking for me in name. They have since called me asking for payment. Lease firm has confirmed they did not give out any mobile number (in fact never had his on record). Do I also tell them that I will be complaining to the DVLA and ICO on unlawful procurement of personal details, DPA section 55?

    Your advice is appreciated.
    Last edited by peacock403; 09-02-2018 at 10:58 AM.
Page 2
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 16th Feb 18, 10:22 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Here is my draft; your advice is appreciated.

    Further to your letter regarding the above PCN, you have stated that you have not been in breach of the POFA and will therefore continue to chase me as the hirer of the vehicle. I beg to differ and wish to clarify my point.

    To emphasise, I am replying as the hirer of the vehicle and this is not an admission to being the driver. Other people are permitted to drive this vehicle under this contract. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Please note that Elliot v Loake is not appropriate under these circumstances.

    In order for you to demand payment from me as the hirer of the vehicle, you will need to comply to POFA. More specifically;

    13(2) of POFA 2012...
    "The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given!!!;

    (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.

    AND

    Paragraph 14(2), (3), (5d) & (7) of POFA 2012:

    (2) The conditions are that;
    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a notice to hirer), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
    (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) the relevant period is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.
    (5) The notice to hirer must!!!8212;
    (d) inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
    (7) In sub-paragraph (5)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes!!!8212;
    (a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the hirer about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
    (b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the hirer to independent adjudication or arbitration.

    As the hirer, I never did receive from you the documents as specified in paragraph 14(2a) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company. You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company.

    You should have sent the notice to hirer to me no later than 21 days from the date you received the hirer details 14 (3). Therefore I should have received the documents no later than 2 February 2018. As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability.

    You were supposed to include a discount if the amount paid early which you failed and therefore have again failed to comply and can therefore not chase me as the keeper of the vehicle.

    The notice to hirer I received did not contain any information on how I can appeal despite this being the first time I received this.

    As you are unable to;
    a) prove who the driver of the vehicle was at that stated time
    b) hold the keeper/hirer liable for the charge because of the failure to comply to POFA,

    You have no other choice but to cancel this charge. I therefore expect a notice of cancellation from you.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Feb 18, 11:09 PM
    • 57,431 Posts
    • 71,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would add here:
    In order for you to demand payment from me as the hirer of the vehicle, you will need had your chance (and failed) to comply to POFA. More specifically;
    Plus, add something telling them NOT to telephone or text any number, and to remove all phone numbers from their stored data, because they are harassing you and causing you and your partner significant distress, without lawful excuse, as they are trying to obtain monies by deception regarding liability, despite knowing they have not complied with para 13/14 of the POFA Schedule 4.

    Moreover, the phone number is not yours so you, or more likely, the phone contract holder will complain to the ICO, if SIP and their agents do not immediately cease and desist with all contact except by letter to the correct postal address.

    Also you could add a dig about the Parliamentary debate and tell them that you think they've 'been Gladstoned' already, stitched up with a business model of aggressive ticketing that has no cause of action, will not win in court and is causing serious distress. Quote the MPs in the debate (linked all over this forum) when they discussed Gladstones.

    That makes SIP's life difficult, because they only sue by using Gladstones.

    Lay it on thick about distress. Can be useful later.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-02-2018 at 11:13 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 19th Feb 18, 3:31 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. my draft is below;

    Further to your letter regarding the above PCN, you have stated that you have not been in breach of the POFA and therefore will continue to chase me as the hirer of the vehicle. I beg to differ and wish to clarify my point.

    To emphasise, I reply as the hirer of the vehicle and this is not an admission to being the driver. Other people are permitted to drive this vehicle under this contract. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Please note that Elliot v Loake is not appropriate under these circumstances.

    In order for you to demand payment from me as the hirer of the vehicle, you had your chance (and failed) to comply to POFA. More specifically;

    13(2) of POFA 2012...
    "The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given!!!;

    (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.

    AND

    Paragraph 14(2), (3), (5d) & (7) of POFA 2012:

    (2) The conditions are that;
    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a notice to hirer, together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
    (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) the relevant period is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.
    (5) The notice to hirer must!!!8212;
    (d) inform the hirer of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
    (7) In sub-paragraph (5)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes!!!8212;
    (a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the hirer about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
    (b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the hirer to independent adjudication or arbitration.

    As the hirer, I never did receive from you the documents as specified in paragraph 14(2a) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company. You were required to send these documents to me no later than 49 days after the NTK was sent to the hire company.

    You should have sent the notice to hirer to me no later than 21 days from the date you received the hirer details 14 (3). Therefore I should have received the documents no later than 2 February 2018. As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability.

    You were supposed to include a discount if the amount paid early which you failed and therefore have again failed to comply and can therefore not chase me as the keeper of the vehicle.

    The notice to hirer I received did not contain any information on how I can appeal despite this being the first time I received this.

    As you are unable to;
    a) prove who the driver of the vehicle was at that stated time
    b) hold the keeper/hirer liable for the charge because of the failure to comply to POFA,

    You have no other choice than to cancel this charge. I therefore expect a notice of cancellation from you.

    I ask you to also remove my mobile number and my partner!!!8217;s from your database as they were unlawfully procured. The lease company has confirmed that they never gave out my or my partner!!!8217;s mobile number. In fact they never had my partner!!!8217;s contact details. Any more contact via this method will result in an official complaint to the ICO.

    You have already caused significant distress in my family by harassing us over the phone without lawful excuse knowing fully that you did not comply to POFA and therefore have no chance of collecting this charge !!!8211; even if it were to go to court.

    You!!!8217;ve been Gladstoned' already, stitched up with a business model of aggressive ticketing that has no cause of action, will not win in court and is causing serious distress.

    I also will be raising this harassment to my MP and I am glad your business models have been discussed in Parliament and MPs have agreed that there is !!!8216;no place for it in the 21st Century!!!8217;.

    Regards,
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 19th Feb 18, 3:51 PM
    • 4,284 Posts
    • 4,330 Thanks
    DoaM
    I ask you to remove ... ?

    Surely you mean ... I demand you remove ...
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 19th Feb 18, 4:23 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    I ask you to remove ... ?

    Surely you mean ... I demand you remove ...
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Good point. Will amend.
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 19th Feb 18, 4:32 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Just thinking now that at the end of the letter, i add.

    I reiterate, cease and desist from chasing me, the keeper/hirer for this charge. You have no lawful grounds!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Feb 18, 1:38 AM
    • 57,431 Posts
    • 71,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Never with an exclamation mark, in a formal letter. Looks hysterical or mad, and not professional.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 20th Feb 18, 3:15 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Thank you all. I will update you on the outcome.
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 2:39 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    After posting the letters over a week ago, today I get a call from the lease company. Apparently PPC has called the lease company threatening them to be taken to court if they don't pay. Now lease company is afraid because very recently another lease company was taken to court and lost in a similar case - not sure which case this is but it involved an NHS worker.

    I have explained to them that they did everything right so cannot be held liable as registered keeper and that I have acknowledged to PPC that I am the hirer of the vehicle. For some reason lease company still thinks that they can be taken to court. Another reason they gave me is that they think PPC is not part of BPA or IPC so they can be liable as registered keeper. I have told them that PPC is part of IPC. I don't think they've done their homework here. I am sending lease company copies of the correspondence with PPC. Is there anything else i should include? Lease company have also asked for any written legal advice I have received.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Mar 18, 2:45 PM
    • 3,203 Posts
    • 4,232 Thanks
    waamo
    Ask the leasing company for copies of the correspondence from the ppc confirming that they can be taken to court. I suspect the ppc won't want to put that in writing.

    Telephone calls are worth the paper they are written on.
    This space for hire.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Mar 18, 2:55 PM
    • 2,471 Posts
    • 3,017 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Indeed, however I imagine the lease company has recorded the calls - most do?

    If so, ask for a copy. you can then complain to the DVLA that the company is KNOWINGLY threatening action it CANNOT pursue, and what the f will they do about relesaing data to this company?
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 3:12 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Apologies, it was an email. I have requested a copy.
    • StaffsSW
    • By StaffsSW 7th Mar 18, 3:16 PM
    • 5,448 Posts
    • 5,553 Thanks
    StaffsSW
    Chris Marsden at SIP has form for this - he has called me a few times in the past, but I didn't take kindly to his tone on any occasion. He has issued a court claim against my company but withdrew it after my defence statement outlined every failure to comply with POFA.

    More and more IPC companies seem to be targeting both hirer and hire company in the hope that one of them will pay up, and they don't really care who.

    The leasing company needs to stand it's ground on this, but you may need to prove to them in simple terms why they shouldn't pay. Just hope they don't buckle.
    <--- Nothing to see here - move along --->
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 4:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    Chris Marsden at SIP has form for this - he has called me a few times in the past, but I didn't take kindly to his tone on any occasion. He has issued a court claim against my company but withdrew it after my defence statement outlined every failure to comply with POFA.

    More and more IPC companies seem to be targeting both hirer and hire company in the hope that one of them will pay up, and they don't really care who.

    The leasing company needs to stand it's ground on this, but you may need to prove to them in simple terms why they shouldn't pay. Just hope they don't buckle.
    Originally posted by StaffsSW

    I will include this in my reply to the lease company. Hopefully they will see the light.
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 5:23 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    This is the email from SIP the lease company received today;

    On your own admission there are 2 drivers eligible to drive the vehicle, but you supplied us with xxxx!!!8217;s details as she was the only driver. As xxx is refusing to accept liability as the driver and we can not prove who was driving we have no option but to transfer liability back.

    To answer your questions:

    xxx!!!8217;s details were provided to us as the driver of the vehicle which she is claiming is false information. When we spoke over the phone you mentioned that her domestic partner was also eligible to drive the vehicle.
    You supplied us with xxx!!!8217;s details and named her as the driver but she is denying that it was her driving at the time of the 39 contraventions.
    Going forward I think what would be best to prevent this type of situation from escalating again would be to include:
    The hire agreement being signed by the master Lessee
    Include that the master lessee will be liable for all parking charges, fines and notification that the vehicle may incur whilst in the master lessee!!!8217;s possession (include this on the hirer agreement you send with the master lessee!!!8217;s signature).
    If required we could send photographic evidence for all 39 outstanding PCN!!!8217;s but you can not clearly see who was driving. Please note from the included screen shot the stages each individual PCN is at and as for a breakdown of cost, we removed the admin charges for 28 days as a goodwill gesture because you emailed saying that you would pay the charges .

    Thanks

    Lease company emailed me stating they think they are liable as registered keepers citing schedule 4 of POFA, paragraphs 1 to 7. I emailed them back paragraphs 13 and 14. Should there be a legal team looking into this?
    • Castle
    • By Castle 7th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    • 1,704 Posts
    • 2,301 Thanks
    Castle
    From the POFA2012 Schedule 4-Paragraph 2(1) definitions:-
    “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;

    The leasing company can prove to the contrary that they, (as the RK), are not the keeper.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 18, 6:14 PM
    • 57,431 Posts
    • 71,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    we have no option but to transfer liability back.
    They cannot 'transfer liability back' from the hirer.

    Send that to the DVLA and to your MP and complain that SIP are lying about 'hirer liability' and phoning up or emailing the lease company after the hirer details were supplied, pretending they can 'transfer liability back' (LOL!!).

    YOU are the keeper, they've stated it and you confirmed it, so they are out of the equation.

    Meanwhile tell the hire firm to read para 13/14 here:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    in particular:

    (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given!!!8212;

    (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.
    There is NOTHING to say that a lease firm has to name the driver - in fact they cannot, can they, unless they were a witness in the car park?! Naming the hirer/lessee (the real keeper) and complying with the above, discharged their liability in full.

    They need to stop being so namby pamby and follow the way StaffsSW handles the rubbish his firm gets. They have discharged liability which means they have no lawful reason to pay the charge because it's not theirs to pay. None of their business now, that situation has moved on to you alone and it's your charge to defend (and these are winnable).

    Tell the lease/hire firm to use the legal advice of the BVRLA (assuming they are listed as members) and not pass the buck, cluelessly asking you to give them legal advice on a law that the BVRLA has known about and had time to get used to, for 5 years.

    When you complain to your MP show them this thread and the POFA.

    SIP appear to be demanding money unlawfully, from a company that cannot in law be held liable after discharging any liability, as they already have done.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • StaffsSW
    • By StaffsSW 7th Mar 18, 6:16 PM
    • 5,448 Posts
    • 5,553 Thanks
    StaffsSW
    I'm not convinced that what they are doing is compliant with the IPC code of practice, or the DVLA requirements, but I'm also not sure if making a complaint to either of them would achieve anything constructive.

    Also which leasing company is it? I know a fair few of them....
    <--- Nothing to see here - move along --->
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 8:51 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    I'm not convinced that what they are doing is compliant with the IPC code of practice, or the DVLA requirements, but I'm also not sure if making a complaint to either of them would achieve anything constructive.

    Also which leasing company is it? I know a fair few of them....
    Originally posted by StaffsSW

    Tuskerdirect
    • peacock403
    • By peacock403 7th Mar 18, 8:56 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    peacock403
    I will copy your advice and send to the lease company. Hopefully they will see that they are not liable for this.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,841Posts Today

8,842Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin