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
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 9th Apr 18, 11:03 AM
    • 18Posts
    • 7Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Lease car notice to hirer - help please!
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:03 AM
    Lease car notice to hirer - help please! 9th Apr 18 at 11:03 AM
    Hi All - read through the newbie file but have a question that I can’t see has been asked (though sure it has and it’s just my inability to use a search function!)

    Postal charge notice - private car park - 2 occasion a week apart.

    1st occasion - 1st of the month... lease company contacted 10 days later, they responded Day 12.

    2nd occasion: 7th of the month... lease company contacted 10 days later, they responded Day 12.

    I have received notice to hirer for 1st occasion... it refers to appeal within 28 days on the front but on the back (the PoFA bit) refers to day 22 hirer being liable if payment not made.

    I was planning to send a template appeal for both instances after 21 days of 2nd occasion them being advised of hire agreement from lease company, but before 28 days from first occasion to be within the 1st occasion appeal window... but the confusion I have is the reference from the parking firm on the POFA section refers to my liability after day 22?

    Can someone with more experience than I explain whether this day 22 liability is real or just an untrue threat to get me to pay?

    Thanks in advance! And apologies if this is a duplicate question!
    John boy
Page 2
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 17th Apr 18, 12:11 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Which template though... can you link to it? the one I had drafted from her only had reference to hirer and the not complying with pofa... not sending docs.

    And also I!!!8217;ve not yet heard from parking firm re occasion 2... but the 21 days to send me everything must start from the day the lease firm respond to them, regardless of when the parking firm decide to write to me?

    Thank you
    JB
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 18, 12:20 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Edna Basher is a chap. I think I made that mistake when he first started posting! He posts as Dennis Basher on pepipoo forum.

    Refer to yourself as the lessee/hirer of the vehicle.

    I agree that you should not wait, and should get this one appealed.
    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.

    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 17th Apr 18, 12:30 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Ah I seem to be offending Edna all over the place! Was badger last week!

    So I will send the template that Just says you haven!!!8217;t complied with pofa section whatever and therefore cancel or send me popla ref... the template I have has no reference to company car status, but that!!!8217;s ok at this stage?
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 17th Apr 18, 3:21 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 1,740 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    No offence taken JimBob

    Maybe I've missed it, but I can't see where your thread gives the name of the parking company that you're dealing with. The process for dealing with your "appeal" will depend on whether they are a BPA or IPC accredited operator.
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 17th Apr 18, 9:20 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Hi Edna - it’s a BPA member. I’ve sent your template (thank you very much) saying as leaser they having complied with section 4 13 and 14 so either cancel or give popla ref... hope that’s ok?
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 17th Apr 18, 9:22 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Clearly typo... meant to say they haven’t complied with 13 and 14

    Ta. JB
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 30th Apr 18, 4:02 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Hi All.... got a poplar ref and a rejection of appeal letter through today

    So now, how do I word the poplar appeal?? Any ideas?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Apr 18, 4:25 PM
    • 7,661 Posts
    • 7,368 Thanks
    KeithP
    So now, how do I word the poplar appeal?? Any ideas?
    Originally posted by JohnBoy987
    It's back to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    This time, let post #3 be your guide.
    .
    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 15th May 18, 12:53 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    HI Everyone,


    Have pulled together a proposed POPLA appeal (as you may be able to tell I have started with a template and amended with additional relevant info) - would be grateful if you could review and ensure what I am saying is valid...


    Thank you!!




    Dear POPLA,On the xx/xx/xxxx, parking firm issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for !!!8220;!!!8230;either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted!!!8230;!!!8221;!!!8232;!!!8232;As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:


    As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge
    Parking firm lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass





    As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge.


    To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:!!!8232;


    The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons:


    Under sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not sent with the required accompanying documentation, as per sub-paragraphs 13 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

    Namely;

    13 (2) (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 the hire agreement;

    13 (2) (b) a copy of the hire agreement;

    13 (2) (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.



    I understand the letter sent to (the lease company) was received by them on xx. I understand they responded to parking firm on xx to confirm the car is leased to myself, and provided my details as hirer, together with a copy of my signed hire agreement and statement of liability. Parking firm acknowledge in the Parking Charge Notice sent to me on xx date that they have been sent copies of the signed hire agreement and statement of liability by the lease company.

    None of these three required documents have been provided to myself as hirer. As a result of not complying with sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a), the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    !!!8232;!!!8232;Understanding keeper liability!!!8232;!!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. !!!8232;!!!8232;There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time.

    Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
    !!!8232;!!!8232;Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. !!!8232;!!!8232;This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    !!!8232;
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    Finally with relation to this point, the appeal that was made to parking firm on xx date explained the elements of PoFA they had not complied with, and the rejection of my appeal did not refer to PoFA at all. I can only assume the person considering my appeal had not read my grounds for appeal as hirer.

    Parking firm lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that parking firm. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that parking firm. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed !!!8216;witness statement!!!8217; slip of paper saying it exists.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:!!!8232;!!!8232;

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:11 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge
    You are NOT the registered keeper. Change it throughout.

    You are the lessee/hirer and the difference is important, because that's what you are arguing in terms of non-compliance of para 13 of the POFA Schedule 4.
    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.

    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 15th May 18, 3:40 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    thanks coupon... will amend


    In that case, the letter sent to me refers me to a notice of keeper... I've never seen anything titled this (assume it was sent to the lease firm but I have not seen a copy) should I mention this in my POPLA referral?


    Aside from that, does the rest sound ok?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 3:44 PM
    • 7,661 Posts
    • 7,368 Thanks
    KeithP
    You may well be the keeper, just not the registered keeper.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:48 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Call yourself the lessee/hirer, show us the new version and you may get more comments.

    We are busy but seeing a new version will help, as my forum view now shows this thread as on page 2 so I can't even see your appeal now unless I click back...no time!
    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.

    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 15th May 18, 3:54 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    New Version - taken out some of the bumpf...


    Dear POPLA,!!!8232;!!!8232;On the xx/xx/xxxx, parking firm. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”!!!8232;!!!8232;As the registered hirer/lessee I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    • As the registered hirer/lessee, I have no liability for this charge
    • parking firm. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

    As the hirer/lessee, I have no liability for this charge.
    To support this point further the following areas of dispute are raised:!!!8232;
    The Notice to Hirer/Lessee is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) for the following reasons:
    Under sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the Notice to Hirer (NTH) was not sent with the required accompanying documentation, as per sub-paragraphs 13 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

    Namely;

    13 (2) (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 the hire agreement;

    13 (2) (b) a copy of the hire agreement;

    13 (2) (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer/lessee under that hire agreement.

    I understand the letter sent to (the lease company) was received by them on xx/xx/xxxx. I understand they responded to parking firm on xx/xx/xxxx to confirm the car is leased to myself, and provided my details as hirer/lessee, together with a copy of my signed hire agreement and statement of liability. parking firm acknowledge in the Parking Charge Notice sent to me on xx date that they have been sent copies of the signed hire agreement and statement of liability by the lease company.

    None of these three required documents have been provided to myself as hirer/lessee. As a result of not complying with sub-paragraph 14 (2) (a), the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover from the hirer/lessee any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to hirer.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    In cases with a hirer/lessee, yet no POFA 'hirer/lessee liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. The has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a hirer/lessee without a valid NTH.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    As the hirer/lessee of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTH' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the hirer/lessee and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a hirer/lessee appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;

    Finally with relation to this point, the appeal that was made to parking firm on xx/xx/xxxx explained the elements of PoFA they had not complied with, and the rejection of my appeal did not refer to PoFA at all. I can only assume the person considering my appeal had not taken the time to read my grounds for appeal as hirer/lessee.

    parking firm. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that parking firm. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that parking firm be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
    !!!8232;!!!8232;
    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:!!!8232;!!!8232;

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 7:03 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As the registered hirer/lessee I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    As the registered hirer/lessee, I have no liability for this charge
    No 'registered'...just 'as the hirer/lessee'.

    Your 'no landowner authority' point should be the full template version.

    You need the usual 'dodgy signs' template (never mind if you know what the sign are like or not, it's used EVERY time in a POPLA appeal, puts the PPC to proof).

    I would also add the usual POPLA template that the appellant (lessee) has not been shown to be the individual liable.

    And I would add the new one about the ICO ANPR surveillance camera CoP (search the forum for that one, I can't recall if it's in the NEWBIES thread yet).

    POPLA appeals are best long and strong to clear up the PPC mess!
    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.

    • JohnBoy987
    • By JohnBoy987 15th May 18, 7:44 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    JohnBoy987
    Brill thank you!! Will adjust and send. Really appreciate your help.

    JB
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

3,819Posts Today

9,184Users online

Martin's Twitter