Some of these will be sent to us for payment, which we will pay and recover from you by way of reimbursement. Alternatively, we may be required to provide your details to the relevant authority or other third party, who will contact you directly. Where we pass your details to a third party this will be in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
You've got to love "...gotten it." ::)
You've got to love "...gotten it." ::)
Here is a suggested response, subject to us seeing the applicable section of the Hire Agreement as mentioned above:QuoteDear Nisola,
Your recent response regarding the payment of a private parking charge notice (PCN) highlights a severe misunderstanding of the nature of the charge, and I am astonished by Hertz’s complete failure to grasp the fundamental differences between a PCN and a statutory fine or penalty issued for an offence by a local authority.
Let me be unequivocally clear: a PCN issued by a private parking company is not a "fine" or "penalty" in any legal sense. It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract. There is no "offence" involved, no "law" has been broken, and no statutory authority is involved. By paying this speculative invoice on my behalf, Hertz has effectively accepted liability for a matter in which no liability existed on my part, and in doing so, has forfeited my right to appeal.
All Hertz had to do was transfer liability to me, the hirer, as required under PoFA paragraph 13(2). This simple action would have been the end of the matter as far as Hertz was concerned. Yet, instead of following this straightforward process, you have chosen to pay the charge directly, thereby making Hertz liable and eliminating any chance of appeal. This is a clear failure on Hertz’s part to comply with well-established legal procedures for handling private parking charges.
The utter nonsense in your response, particularly the following paragraph, is both infuriating and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding:
"Furthermore, to be a fair vendor, we send the fines across to you as soon as we get them so that you can appeal. You will be refunded for each appeal you win. So, anytime we send a fine you do not agree with, let us know and we will send you the appeal document. Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of sending the fines to you and you request for an appeal because we can't appeal on your behalf as you are the driver. W.e wouldn't know what you were doing in the location where the driving law was broken."
This statement is not only completely irrelevant but also demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance about the nature of a PCN. There is no "driving law" involved, no "offence" was committed, and a PCN is not a statutory fine. The process described is utterly unnecessary and has caused needless confusion. All you had to do was transfer liability under PoFA, and this nonsense could have been avoided.
I would also like to remind you that the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidelines clearly distinguish between private parking charges and statutory penalties or fines. These guidelines state that parking charges are private matters, not enforceable by statutory authorities, and therefore should not be treated in the same way as fines or penalties. Your decision to pay this charge without transferring liability to me as the hirer is in direct contravention of these guidelines, further highlighting Hertz’s negligence in this matter.
Additionally, this action breaches the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015. As mentioned previously, Section 62 prohibits terms that put consumers at an unfair disadvantage, and Section 57 prevents me from bearing costs I am not liable for under the agreement. You have extended the scope of the agreement beyond what was contractually agreed, and I am now holding Hertz liable for the money you have wrongfully charged me.
If you are still unable to comprehend the seriousness of this issue, I suggest you escalate this matter to your superiors or, if necessary, directly to Hertz's legal advisors. I will not hesitate to initiate litigation to recover the funds you have unlawfully taken from me, as well as any additional costs incurred.
This is my final request for a full refund of the amount Hertz wrongly paid on my behalf. I also demand that Hertz conduct an internal review to ensure this incompetence does not continue to affect other customers.
I expect a prompt and appropriate response.
Yours sincerely,
Well, this is a bit damning for Hertz:QuoteFINES, TOLLS AND OTHER CHARGES
You are responsible for all fines, road tolls, congestion charges and other similar charges (including parking fines or charges) incurred in relation to the vehicle during your rental. Some of these will be sent to us for payment, which we will pay and recover from you by way of reimbursement. Alternatively, we may be required to provide your details to the relevant authority or other third party, who will contact you directly.
Section 16:QuoteBy signing this rental agreement I agree that while the rental agreement is in force I will be liable as owner/hirer of the vehicle, or any replacement vehicle, for any fixed penalty offence, penalty charge notice, notice to owner, parking charge notice for that vehicle under s66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991, Traffic Management Act 2004, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and any other relevant legislation.
The mention of both "parking charge notices" and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) in Section 16 of the agreement makes a significant difference. Here’s how it affects the situation:
PoFA Requirements:
Since Section 16 refers to both parking charge notices and PoFA, it acknowledges that Hertz must handle such notices in compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Under PoFA paragraph 13, if a parking charge notice is issued by a private parking company, Hertz has the option to transfer liability to the hirer (you), allowing you to take responsibility for the notice and, crucially, to appeal if necessary.
Failure to Follow PoFA:
Despite this reference to PoFA, Hertz did not follow the correct legal process outlined in PoFA paragraph 13. Instead of transferring liability to you as the hirer, which would have been the appropriate course of action, they directly paid the charge. This payment means that liability was admitted, effectively removing your ability to contest the charge or appeal it through proper channels.
Contractual Obligations Under PoFA:
By failing to comply with PoFA, Hertz has breached its own rental agreement. The agreement refers to PoFA, which outlines a clear legal mechanism for transferring liability in cases involving private parking charge notices. Hertz should have relied on this mechanism to transfer liability to you, rather than pay the charge themselves and then pass the cost on to you without giving you the chance to contest the charge.
No Obligation to Pay Immediately:
PoFA does not require Hertz to pay a private PCN immediately upon receiving it. Instead, they should have passed the notice to you, allowing you to respond or appeal within the 28-day period specified under PoFA. By paying the PCN directly, Hertz has deprived you of your legal rights under this Act.
Key Argument:
Since Hertz acknowledged PoFA in the agreement but failed to follow its procedures, they have breached both their contractual obligations and your legal rights under PoFA. Their payment of the PCN without transferring liability is a direct violation of the Act, and this action should never have taken place.
Here is a slightly amended version of the response you should be sending to Nisola:QuoteDear Nisola,
Your recent response regarding the payment of a private parking charge notice (PCN) demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of both the nature of the charge and Hertz’s contractual obligations under the hire agreement. I am truly astounded by Hertz’s total failure to comprehend the basic legal framework surrounding PCNs issued by private parking companies.
Let me clarify: a PCN issued by a private parking company is not a "fine" or "penalty" in any legal sense. It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract. There is no "offence" involved, no "law" has been broken, and no statutory authority is involved. By paying this speculative invoice on my behalf, Hertz has accepted liability for a matter in which no liability existed on my part, and in doing so, has forfeited my right to appeal.
All Hertz had to do was transfer liability to me, the hirer, as required under PoFA paragraph 13. This simple action would have been the end of the matter as far as Hertz was concerned. Instead of following this straightforward process, you chose to pay the charge directly, removing my ability to appeal. This is a clear failure on Hertz’s part to comply with both PoFA and your own rental agreement.
Section 16 of your agreement explicitly mentions both "parking charge notices" and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). This clearly indicates that Hertz is aware of the requirements under PoFA, including the obligation to transfer liability to the hirer in the event of a private parking charge. By failing to transfer liability, Hertz has breached both the agreement and PoFA itself.
The nonsensical paragraph in your response is particularly infuriating: "Furthermore, to be a fair vendor, we send the fines across to you as soon as we get them so that you can appeal. You will be refunded for each appeal you win. So, anytime we send a fine you do not agree with, let us know and we will send you the appeal document. Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of sending the fines to you and you request for an appeal because we can't appeal on your behalf as you are the driver. We wouldn’t know what you were doing in the location where the driving law was broken."
This statement shows an utter lack of understanding. No "driving law" has been broken, no "fine" was issued, and Hertz had no obligation to pay a private parking invoice on my behalf. All you had to do was transfer the liability, which is both the legal requirement and the appropriate action under PoFA.
Furthermore, the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidelines clearly distinguish between private parking charges and statutory penalties or fines. Your decision to pay this charge without transferring liability to me as the hirer is in direct contravention of these guidelines, further highlighting Hertz’s negligence in this matter.
Additionally, this action breaches the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015. As mentioned previously, Section 62 prohibits terms that put consumers at an unfair disadvantage, and Section 57 prevents me from bearing costs I am not liable for under the agreement. You have extended the scope of the agreement beyond what was contractually agreed, and I am now holding Hertz liable for the money you have wrongfully charged me.
If you are still unable to comprehend the seriousness of this issue, I suggest you escalate this matter to your superiors or, if necessary, directly to Hertz's legal advisors. I will not hesitate to initiate litigation to recover the funds you have unlawfully taken from me, as well as any additional costs incurred.
This is my final request for a full refund of the amount Hertz wrongly paid on my behalf. I also demand that Hertz conduct an internal review to ensure this incompetence does not continue to affect other customers.
I expect a prompt and appropriate response.
Yours sincerely,
FINES, TOLLS AND OTHER CHARGES
You are responsible for all fines, road tolls, congestion charges and other similar charges (including parking fines or charges) incurred in relation to the vehicle during your rental. Some of these will be sent to us for payment, which we will pay and recover from you by way of reimbursement. Alternatively, we may be required to provide your details to the relevant authority or other third party, who will contact you directly.
By signing this rental agreement I agree that while the rental agreement is in force I will be liable as owner/hirer of the vehicle, or any replacement vehicle, for any fixed penalty offence, penalty charge notice, notice to owner, parking charge notice for that vehicle under s66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991, Traffic Management Act 2004, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and any other relevant legislation.
Dear Nisola,
Your recent response regarding the payment of a private parking charge notice (PCN) demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of both the nature of the charge and Hertz’s contractual obligations under the hire agreement. I am truly astounded by Hertz’s total failure to comprehend the basic legal framework surrounding PCNs issued by private parking companies.
Let me clarify: a PCN issued by a private parking company is not a "fine" or "penalty" in any legal sense. It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract. There is no "offence" involved, no "law" has been broken, and no statutory authority is involved. By paying this speculative invoice on my behalf, Hertz has accepted liability for a matter in which no liability existed on my part, and in doing so, has forfeited my right to appeal.
All Hertz had to do was transfer liability to me, the hirer, as required under PoFA paragraph 13. This simple action would have been the end of the matter as far as Hertz was concerned. Instead of following this straightforward process, you chose to pay the charge directly, removing my ability to appeal. This is a clear failure on Hertz’s part to comply with both PoFA and your own rental agreement.
Section 16 of your agreement explicitly mentions both "parking charge notices" and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). This clearly indicates that Hertz is aware of the requirements under PoFA, including the obligation to transfer liability to the hirer in the event of a private parking charge. By failing to transfer liability, Hertz has breached both the agreement and PoFA itself.
The nonsensical paragraph in your response is particularly infuriating: "Furthermore, to be a fair vendor, we send the fines across to you as soon as we get them so that you can appeal. You will be refunded for each appeal you win. So, anytime we send a fine you do not agree with, let us know and we will send you the appeal document. Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of sending the fines to you and you request for an appeal because we can't appeal on your behalf as you are the driver. We wouldn’t know what you were doing in the location where the driving law was broken."
This statement shows an utter lack of understanding. No "driving law" has been broken, no "fine" was issued, and Hertz had no obligation to pay a private parking invoice on my behalf. All you had to do was transfer the liability, which is both the legal requirement and the appropriate action under PoFA.
Furthermore, the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidelines clearly distinguish between private parking charges and statutory penalties or fines. Your decision to pay this charge without transferring liability to me as the hirer is in direct contravention of these guidelines, further highlighting Hertz’s negligence in this matter.
Additionally, this action breaches the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015. As mentioned previously, Section 62 prohibits terms that put consumers at an unfair disadvantage, and Section 57 prevents me from bearing costs I am not liable for under the agreement. You have extended the scope of the agreement beyond what was contractually agreed, and I am now holding Hertz liable for the money you have wrongfully charged me.
If you are still unable to comprehend the seriousness of this issue, I suggest you escalate this matter to your superiors or, if necessary, directly to Hertz's legal advisors. I will not hesitate to initiate litigation to recover the funds you have unlawfully taken from me, as well as any additional costs incurred.
This is my final request for a full refund of the amount Hertz wrongly paid on my behalf. I also demand that Hertz conduct an internal review to ensure this incompetence does not continue to affect other customers.
I expect a prompt and appropriate response.
Yours sincerely,
Before I can assist, you have not shown us the clause in your Hire Agreement that covers how Hertz will handle PCNs. Please show us the wording of that clause.
Standing ovation for that letter to Hertz.And a slow hand clap for the letter from Hertz ;D
Dear Nisola,
Your recent response regarding the payment of a private parking charge notice (PCN) highlights a severe misunderstanding of the nature of the charge, and I am astonished by Hertz’s complete failure to grasp the fundamental differences between a PCN and a statutory fine or penalty issued for an offence by a local authority.
Let me be unequivocally clear: a PCN issued by a private parking company is not a "fine" or "penalty" in any legal sense. It is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract. There is no "offence" involved, no "law" has been broken, and no statutory authority is involved. By paying this speculative invoice on my behalf, Hertz has effectively accepted liability for a matter in which no liability existed on my part, and in doing so, has forfeited my right to appeal.
All Hertz had to do was transfer liability to me, the hirer, as required under PoFA paragraph 13(2). This simple action would have been the end of the matter as far as Hertz was concerned. Yet, instead of following this straightforward process, you have chosen to pay the charge directly, thereby making Hertz liable and eliminating any chance of appeal. This is a clear failure on Hertz’s part to comply with well-established legal procedures for handling private parking charges.
The utter nonsense in your response, particularly the following paragraph, is both infuriating and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding:
"Furthermore, to be a fair vendor, we send the fines across to you as soon as we get them so that you can appeal. You will be refunded for each appeal you win. So, anytime we send a fine you do not agree with, let us know and we will send you the appeal document. Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of sending the fines to you and you request for an appeal because we can't appeal on your behalf as you are the driver. W.e wouldn't know what you were doing in the location where the driving law was broken."
This statement is not only completely irrelevant but also demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance about the nature of a PCN. There is no "driving law" involved, no "offence" was committed, and a PCN is not a statutory fine. The process described is utterly unnecessary and has caused needless confusion. All you had to do was transfer liability under PoFA, and this nonsense could have been avoided.
I would also like to remind you that the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidelines clearly distinguish between private parking charges and statutory penalties or fines. These guidelines state that parking charges are private matters, not enforceable by statutory authorities, and therefore should not be treated in the same way as fines or penalties. Your decision to pay this charge without transferring liability to me as the hirer is in direct contravention of these guidelines, further highlighting Hertz’s negligence in this matter.
Additionally, this action breaches the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015. As mentioned previously, Section 62 prohibits terms that put consumers at an unfair disadvantage, and Section 57 prevents me from bearing costs I am not liable for under the agreement. You have extended the scope of the agreement beyond what was contractually agreed, and I am now holding Hertz liable for the money you have wrongfully charged me.
If you are still unable to comprehend the seriousness of this issue, I suggest you escalate this matter to your superiors or, if necessary, directly to Hertz's legal advisors. I will not hesitate to initiate litigation to recover the funds you have unlawfully taken from me, as well as any additional costs incurred.
This is my final request for a full refund of the amount Hertz wrongly paid on my behalf. I also demand that Hertz conduct an internal review to ensure this incompetence does not continue to affect other customers.
I expect a prompt and appropriate response.
Yours sincerely,
For now, your only issue is with Hertz.Exactly this - from MET's perspective the case(s) are closed, they've issued Hertz with invoices, and been paid.
Where's the PCN gone??
@mdar50743 Have you approached McDonalds, they may have the power to instruct MET to cancel. There was a recent occurrence where they have been receptive.
I agree it is an unfair term.
The issue becomes a practical one. Are you aware of:-
- Any hire company accept the argument and either refunding or not charging.
- A credit provider acception a section 75 claim.
- An FoS decision in favour.
- A successful claim for reimbursement from the hire company via court.
The practical problem being the hire company will just take it from the credit card if they don't transfer liability (usually on the fallacious basis of "we were doing you a favour to stop it escalating"). Then they have the money and one of the remedies above will be required.
An alternative strategy might be to cancel the card to attempt to prevent collection (noting that some banking groups attempt to give themselves the right to just debit any ingroup new card).
At least this way a victim can simply wait until a claim issued and defend it.
It's a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
BVRLA guidelines for hire car companies regarding parking charges from unregulated private parking companies emphasise proper handling and transferring of liability. In situations where a hire company like Hertz mistakenly pays a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), creates significant legal issues under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
1. Transferring Liability, Not Paying the Charge:
Notice to Keeper (NtK): When the hire company receives an NtK, their responsibility under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is to transfer liability to the hirer by providing the hirer's details and relevant documents (such as a copy of the rental agreement).
The BVRLA advises that hire companies should follow this legal process and not pay the parking charge on behalf of the hirer. Paying the PCN deprives the hirer of their right to appeal, and is especially problematic if the NtK explicitly mentions that payment extinguishes the right to contest the charge.
2. Right to Appeal:
If the hire company pays the PCN and tells the hirer they can appeal for a refund, this is in complete contradiction with the NtK's terms stating that payment voids the right to appeal. This would place the hirer in an unfair position, potentially violating Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 57(4)(c) of the CRA 2015, which prevents a company from putting the consumer (hirer) at a disadvantage for pursuing their rights (in this case, the right to appeal the PCN).
3. Unfair Terms and CRA 2015 Compliance:
Any clause in a hire agreement allowing the hire company to pay a PCN without allowing the hirer a chance to appeal is deemed unfair under the CRA 2015. Section 57(4)(c) explicitly prohibits contractual terms that put a consumer at a disadvantage when exercising their rights, such as appealing a PCN.
The BVRLA guidelines advise hire companies to ensure their contracts do not contain unfair terms and to allow hirers the opportunity to exercise their appeal rights, especially when dealing with unregulated PPCs. Unregulated PPCs often issue questionable charges, which hirers may be able to contest successfully.
4. Administration Fees:
While BVRLA members may charge an administration fee for handling parking charges, they must still follow the law in transferring liability, ensuring that the hirer has the opportunity to appeal the charge before it is paid.
5. Best Practices for Dealing with Unregulated PPCs:
The BVRLA stresses that hire companies should handle parking charges from unregulated PPCs cautiously. They should follow all legal procedures to ensure that hirers are not unfairly disadvantaged.
Unregulated PPCs, whether they are part of the British Parking Association (BPA) or International Parking Community (IPC), operate outside formal regulation and their charges may be disputable. As such, hirers must be given every opportunity to challenge these charges before they are paid.
The BVRLA guidelines encourage hire companies to avoid paying PCNs on behalf of hirers and instead transfer liability correctly under PoFA. Doing otherwise violates the CRA 2015 by depriving hirers of their legal right to appeal, particularly in cases where payment precludes further contestation.
You would also be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) even if the hire agreement did allow Hertz to pay the PCN as it is an unfair term.
Have a read of section 62 of the Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62). Also, Section 57(4) applies.
You should point out to Hertz that if they pay the PCN, thereby removing any right you have to appeal it, they are in breach of section 57(4)(c) of Chapter 4 of the CRA 2015 which states:Quote57 Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted
(4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would —(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy
57 Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted
(4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would —(c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy
2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—(a) 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 a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Welcome. As an EV owner for almost 5 years, I have some understanding of the issues surrounding rapid charging, especially when using Instavolt. Not the cheapest and especially if it comes with an added invoice of £100 per visit, ans in this case, although I would question why the need to rapid charge for over an hour each time.
I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK), Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now, assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important that we get these fact correct.
Have you been in any contact with the operator, MET Parking, and if so, have you revealed the identity of the Driver? MET will only know the identity of the Driver of you, the Hirer, has told them. Hopefully, you haven’t done so. Neither Hertz nor MET know the identity of the driver and, as you can read on the NtK, it the Driver who is liable for the alleged debt.
The Driver, the Keeper and the Hirer are all separate legal entities. Whilst the Keeper/Hirer may also be the Driver, that is only known by the Keeper/Hirer. In the case of a hired vehicle, the Hire company does not know who the Driver is. There is no legal requirement for the Hirer to identify the Driver to an unregulated private parking company.
You have already, mistakenly, called these “fines”. Only an “authority” such as a council or the police can issue “fines” or “penalties” and only if an “offence” has been committed. MET are a private company and definitely not an “authority” of any kind. What they have issued is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the Driver. Can you show a single mention of the words “fine”, “penalty” or “offence” on any of the paperwork received?
MET are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted) to be able to transfer liability for the charge (invoice) from the Driver, if they are unknown, to the Keeper or Hirer. That can only happen if all the requirements of PoFA have been fully complied with. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
If the driver has been identified by the Hirer, then PoFA does not apply and the Driver (now known to MET) remains liable and a “golden ticket” opportunity has been wasted. Has the Driver been identified?
Normally, a PCN for a Hire/Lease vehicle is considered a “golden ticket” as almost every PPC fails to follow all the requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as long as they have not followed all those requirements and the Driver remains unknown, the Hirer cannot be liable for the PCN.
The most common reason that PPCs such as MET Parking fail to fully comply with all the requirements is because they fail to either issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) once liability has been transferred by the Keeper or, more likely, they fail to include copies of the documents specified in Paragraphs 13(2) of PoFA.
So, we need to establish whether you have identified the Driver. If not, have MET sent you an NtH? If they have, did they include copies of the relevant documents as required in PoFA paragraph 13(2)?
The next thing we need to establish is what the signs at the location actually say. The signs are the contract that the Driver agreed to, whether they read them or not (contract by conduct). Can you get photos of the signs at the location? We need to see an overview and some close ups of the actual signs at the EV charging bays.
If the Driver has been identified, then the best chance of getting the PCNs cancelled is if the signs are incapable of creating a valid contract with the Driver. It is much more difficult than if the Driver has not been identified.
Finally, why was the Driver charging an EV for over an hour on a Rapid Charger? Are the Instavolt chargers at the location 50kW versions or more powerful ones? Charging above 80% on a Rapid charger is a waste of time as the charge rate begins to slow dramatically in order to protect the battery. As the Polestar has an ultra rapid charging capability of at least 150kW (205kW if it’s a Polestar 2), it would be advisable to seek out ultra rapid chargers, especially at locations that are not infested with PPCs, and spend less time charging.