Author Topic: Transfer of liability rejection based on historical PCN london camden council - please help  (Read 898 times)

0 Members and 77 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi everyone,

We are a vehicle hire firm, and we recently encountered an issue with a London council rejecting our representation to transfer liability for a new PCN to the hirer. The council's reason was that the hire agreement for the current PCN did not match an agreement related to a past, unrelated PCN (was paid and closed).

For context, with the hirer’s permission, we provided two separate hire agreements: one specifically for bus lane PCNs and another for standard traffic PCNs.  This allows us to transfere liability to the hirer in all circumstances.

This raises a few questions, and we'd appreciate any insights:

Are councils allowed to compare historical PCNs with new ones and make decisions based on these comparisons?
If a past PCN is closed and settled, shouldn’t it remain separate and not be referenced in new cases?
Shouldn’t each PCN be considered on its own merit, rather than being influenced by previously closed cases?
How far back can they go to compare PCNs in this way? Does legislation permit them to use prior cases as a basis for decisions on current ones? We could have produced and fixed old hire agreements..
Thanks for any advice or experiences you can share on this.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2024, 11:53:27 pm by motion »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Please post up the Notice of Rejection that you received from Camden.

Instructions for posting documents can be found in the READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!** sticky post at the top of the forum.

At first sight something is amiss. There either is or there isn't a compliant hire agreement in place. A prior hire agreement shouldn't have anything to do with the current PCN.

This also sounds like you'll have to appeal the case to the independent Adjudicator. You, in this case, being the hire company since liability has not been transferred to the hirer.


THanks. The council is comparing the sent Hire agreement with previous PCNs

« Last Edit: October 28, 2024, 09:06:26 pm by motion »

Don't tell us, show us!


Explain pl.

In what way did the hire agreement in this case cause the authority to believe that it was not a proper document for these purposes?

The are saying the hire dates are different - but hire dates are different because they compared two different hire agreement from two different PCNs - the hire agreement in question has no issues on its own merit.  It will only be an issue if they compared with a previous PCN of same car.  But what legislation allows them to compare the two PCNs one closed and paid for?  The hirer raised no objection
For context we keep two Hire agreements one for buslane and one for normal PCN to allow for easy tranfer of PCNs
« Last Edit: October 29, 2024, 05:43:12 pm by motion »

You've not posted the docs, so at the moment we cannot examine the point they're making.

As this is the LLA Act you need to post the full NoR because your next step is either appeal to the adjudicator or pay. You can no longer dispute this with the council.

And leave in all dates pl.

For context we keep two Hire agreements one for buslane and one for normal PCN to allow for easy tranfer of PCNs

How does this work, does the customer not sign the agreement when hiring, or do you get them to sign both documents?

I'm not sure the rejection is based on specific legislation OP. I think the authority just thinks it is smelling a rat and has decided to reject on this basis.

Please see below two hire agreements

For context we keep two Hire agreements one for buslane and one for normal PCN to allow for easy tranfer of PCNs

How does this work, does the customer not sign the agreement when hiring, or do you get them to sign both documents?
We ask customer to sign a templated one then we add dates or renewals and send a copy to hirer - hirer are ok with the changes and updates.  We keep two hire agreements and send one for buslane for buslkane offence as this needs to be >6months while for other offence we send the normal <than 6 months in order to facilitate transfer of liability
« Last Edit: October 29, 2024, 06:28:28 pm by motion »

Just so I can understand the circumstances properly, are you saying this is a hire period in excess of six months (with a corresponding agreement), but in order to fit in with non bus lane PCNs, you have another hire agreement running in parallel of less than six months duration which (I presume) is renewed upon expiry?

Just so I can understand the circumstances properly, are you saying this is a hire period in excess of six months (with a corresponding agreement), but in order to fit in with non bus lane PCNs, you have another hire agreement running in parallel of less than six months duration which (I presume) is renewed upon expiry?
Thanks Mr CHips - exactly this. Yes as can be seen in the second picture - we add 5 monthly durations - and send a copy to hirer

Surely it's not a bus lane contravention: Using a route restricted to ......