Free Traffic Legal Advice

Isn't the VRM the same as the number plate? Providing this information, wouldn't it reveal the name and address of the person?

@mitaab reveal it to whom? The council has the VRM already and they can get the name and address from DVLA, the rest of us have no means of accessing the DVLA database, so it's not clear what point there is in hiding this information.

I would suggest you get photos of all the CPZ signs identified by Incandescent, who has done a sterling job of working out where the applicable signs are.

However you should not volunteer those photos in the representations, the burden is on the council to prove that the signs are there in the first place, you don't have to prove anything until the council discharges its burden of evidence.

As H C Andersen says, you need to speak to the hire company and get them to agree to transfer liability to you, they should have no reason to object as it means the PCN is no longer their problem.

Hi all,

I received the Notice to Owner from the LA, dated 19/09/2024.

As previously requested, I tootled through the route in question, and I can confirm that there is no entry sign for the CPZ MA!

So the GPS for 2022 is still valid, no change. I also took photos as well.

I have till Friday to submit my representations. It was suggested that I withhold photo evidence and use it later for the appeal stage should the PCN is not cancelled, which is the norm with the LA.

Another point I would like to use in my representations is that the date of issue of the PCN was 16/02/2024 and the date of issue of the NtO was 19/09/2024 which is more that seven months. Is this acceptable, even when taking into account the NtO that was sent first to the rent company? I would like to use this issue in my representations, but I don't the legal reference that I can rely on.

Finally, I have received an email from the rent company agreeing to me challenging the PCN, and that if I win the case they will waiver their £60 admin fee.

A draft of the challenge would very much be appreciated.

Hi all

I have received the Notice of Rejection to my representations, as expected. Below copies of my Reps and their NoR. They have not provided any evidence to refute my claim regarding the no entry sign for the CPZ MA. When are they supposed to provide evidence to support their decision?

Your feedback and advice is much appreciated.

Representation:

https://ibb.co/hZC7hfh

NoR:

https://ibb.co/MZKD1pJ

https://ibb.co/FDtrtC5

https://ibb.co/KrLXKqM

https://ibb.co/drzwdGx

Finally, I have received an email from the rent company agreeing to me challenging the PCN,.....


What??

On this point this has nothing to do with the hire company so I wonder what the email states. Pl post.

IMO, you won't fail at adjudication, in fact their NoR is one of the most bland responses I've read for some time, totally devoid of reasoning and on this point alone you'd probably succeed.

As things stand:
They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.

And then whether any penalty could be demanded for want of the restriction being signed in accordance with their obligations.

They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.

I think LA made a reference to this matter in the NoR, second page - bottom paragraph. I guess they will include any evidence relating to this in their Evidence Pack at the Appeal stage. Speaking of which, is it accepted that the LA might include new evidence in their Evidence Pack that they have not highlighted before?

By the way, I have not come across the "Notice of Acceptance" before. What purpose does it serve and when is issued?

Also, shall I accept the Evidence Pack by email, as per the LA request in their NoR?

I am submitting my Appeal shortly. What are the major points that I should base my appeal on.

Thank you in anticipation.

Before going through this evidence pl confirm the nature of your hire agreement, it's important.

The grounds of 'we are a vehicle hire company' are invalid if the hire is for more than 6 months e.g. a lease etc.  In this case their grounds are 'not the owner' because the lease provides sufficient permanence to your keepership as to make you, not them, 'keeper' in law. Sending a NTO to the registered keeper does NOT of itself mean they are the keeper for the purposes of enforcement because this is simply a presumption which in their case may be rebutted by production of a lease.

Whereas, for hire agreements (which are defined in law as being for a period of less than 6 months) the grounds of 'we are a vehicle hire company' apply.

So, hire(less than 6 months) or lease?

Edit- can't understand their evidence summary, they suggest that they received 2 sets of reps from Athlon!

In any event, IMO there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the authority. The NTO sent to you was invalid because the authority did not have the legal power to consider you as hirer and therefore liable pursuant to representations made by the registered keeper. This follows because the nature of your possession was subject to a long-term lease and therefore while the registered keeper could have argued that you were the 'owner' by virtue of you being considered the keeper due to the permanence of your possession, they could not seek to transfer liability based upon the vehicle being hired because no 'hiring agreement' exists.

I refer to the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2022-2023 page 13. https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf

“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.

Pl explain. This muddies the water even more.

A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.

Will you pl explain who is who in this saga.

A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. According to what you say, it means that Athlon is the hire company, Auxillis is the hirer and I am the driver. How intriguing!

But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am not liable.

So, the LA made an error by accepting the Auxillis Reps, passing the parking liability onto me?

If that is the case, please what is the best way to present this to the adjudicator, and would the adjudicator be aware of this regulation?