Then IMO the grounds of 'I am not the owner' apply.
Sir,
PCN *********
My grounds of appeal are as follows:
I was not the owner;
Contravention did not occur. ( if you want to, I rather got lost with the arguments here)
As regards the first grounds, I hope it would be helpful if I set out the various parties in these events.
Athlone - registered keeper of the vehicle and a leasing company;
Auxilis - lessee of the vehicle on, as the council states, a 'long term lease' and who also operate as a vehicle hire company;
******* - my insurance company who use Auxilis to provide insured parties with substitute vehicles while they undertake repairs;
Me - an insured party of **** and also the driver of the vehicle VRM **** which I had in my possession having been provided with this by Auxilis pursuant to a contract between them and *****.
Each of the above parties was served with a NTO issued by the authority.
NTO 1 - issued on ***** to Athlone. As the case summary states, they made representations to the effect that they were a hire company. These were accepted by the authority who then issued a NTO to Auxilis who were named as the 'hirer' pursuant to a 'hire agreement'.
NTO 2 - issued to Auxilis on **** to which they made the representations on the same grounds i.e. that they were a vehicle hire company and that I had entered into a hire agreement with them accepting liability for such matters as penalty charges.
NTO 3 - issued on ***** to me on the basis that I was considered the 'owner' for the purposes of the Traffic Management Act and regulations.
I submit that I cannot be considered the 'owner' for these purposes for the following reasons and that no liability for the penalty falls to me.
It is clear that Athlone are not a vehicle hire company and there is no hire agreement between them and Auxilis. In support, I would respectfully refer you the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators 2022-2023, page 13 which dealt specifically with the issue of 'Transfer of Liability'.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdfIn the report he made clear (and referred to legal authorities in support of his view) that it was not open to an authority to accept representations on the grounds of 'd)the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a hiring agreement,'
in case where leases for longer than 6 months apply. Instead, he stated that a registered keeper could rebut the presumption of ownership based upon a lease being in effect which would achieve the necessary degree of permanence regarding transfer of responsibility for the vehicle.
However, the council in this case have not provided any evidence that these were the grounds cited or their reasons for acceptance, but I suggest that this can be reasonably inferred from their summary. In these circumstances I submit that it was not open to the council to pursue any party other than Athlone as the registered keeper and presumed owner because no 'hiring agreement' was in effect between them and their lessee, Auxilis.
In addition to the above, as regards Auxilis the only contract which existed as regards the hire of the vehicle was between them and ****, my insurer. As their Ts and Cs make clear, my possession of the vehicle was subject to the 'Company's' direction, not mine. I submit that while they use the term Hire Agreement, this was for their convenience only and did not satisfy the requirements under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act and therefore the regulations.
In light of the above, I ask that my appeal be allowed.
You need to fill in gaps.
Some thoughts and wait for others.
