I've drafted this as a suggestion:
I am appealing on numerous grounds as set out in my representations and the following which derive from the same procedural facts:
I was not and never was the owner; and
Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
I use the car under a lease whose term is 4 years, see enclosed.
The registered keeper, ******, was properly sent a PCN for the alleged contravention and subsequently made representations to the council on the grounds that they were a vehicle-hire firm and that the vehicle was hired to me under a hiring agreement. The council appear to have accepted these representations at face value despite the registered keeper not being a vehicle-hire firm and that there was not and never was a hiring agreement in force. In fact, none of the proof required under Regulation 5(d) of the Appeals Regulations was produced. But, despite this, the council accepted the representations, cancelled the PCN and issued a fresh notice to me on the basis that I was the person by whom a penalty charge is to be paid for the purposes of the Traffic Management Act.
It was only subsequent to my representations that I was referred to the applicable regulations and the registered keeper's and the council's errors. I was also referred to repeated references in the Chief Adjudicator of London Tribunal's annual reports on this point which I have enclosed in full and have tried to summarise below(I hope not unfairly):
In order for liability to be transferred, there are 'restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law', which must be complied with by councils. Failure to do so renders any transfer of liability unlawful.
While I understand that one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another(and in this instance from a different Tribunal), I infer from the Chief Adjudicator's reference to 'restated in case law' that there is binding legal precedent in this matter.
(Annual report 2021-2022)
Transfer of liability
While liability for a penalty normally falls on the registered keeper of the
contravening vehicle, liability can be transferred in the case of vehicles hired for less than six months to the hirers. In the case of long leases, the lessees may become liable depending on the terms and conditions of the lease.
Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between short-term hire and long leases are not well understood by motorists and authorities. Furthermore, for a transfer of liability to occur in short-term hires, the hire firm must provide documentation of the hire as required by law. These requirements are also not well understood with some authorities insisting on strict compliance while other would accept a transfer without ever seeing the documentation.
Adjudicators would urge hire companies and authorities to pay greater attention to the legal issues involved before the matter reaches the appeal stage.
(Annual Report 2022-2023)
Transfer of liability
I have reported last year on issues concerning the transfer of liability when the registered keeper of a hired vehicle seeks to transfer of liability to the hirers.
Adjudicators have found that despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are re-stated in case law, parties are still not grasping provisions. Adjudicators noted that some authorities have allowed transfer even when the required evidence has not that their representations have been accepted by some but not other authorities. Adjudicators would urge hire companies and authorities to pay greater attention to the legal issues and consider the evidential requirements for a transfer before the matter reaches the appeal stage.
