Did you send it as a formal complaint? Use the words "formal complaint" as many times as you think necessary to get through their thick skulls that this is not an appeal.
The IAS is a farce and they are thieving bar-stewards if they think anyone who is getting advice here is going to waste £15 on them.
That’s much better. Re-read the PCN and note that only the driver is liable for the charge. Technically, the recipient isn’t the Hirer, their employer is. However, as previously mentioned, you are dealing with intellectually malnourished people.
It is not an NtH although it does state that the recipient has been named as the Hirer. As a PCN, CPMUK cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold the recipient liable for the charge. They state throughout the PCN that only the driver is liable.
As they still have no idea who the driver is and the PCN offers 28 days from the day after the date the notice is given (Wednesday 6th November) to appeal it, your friend now has until Wednesday 4th December to submit the appeal.
Simply appeal as the Hirer (even though, technically, they are not) with the following:QuoteI am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
As your Parking Charge Notice does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPMUK has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your PCN can only hold the driver liable. CPMUK have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Hopefully, this will finally be resolved if CPMUK accept defeat, although I highly doubt they will. This will then move on to IAS if your friend wants to bother with that kangaroo court.
I believe that the most likely outcome come is now going to be a claim which is easily defended and will, ultimately be discontinued, struck out or simply won.
Although it says the appeal can be appealed but upon trying to appeal i am getting an error
"This PCN has already been appealed
Please contact us if you wish to enquire about this PCN"
I have taken a screenshot of this. Should i directly appeal to IAS saying that a new notice has been sent however my friend is unable to appeal?
I guess they can't create a new pcn reference number on their system. Could this be why they were reluctant to transfer liability?
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
All correspondence regarding a disputed Parking Charge Notice (PCN) must follow the correct appeals process.
Within 21 days of the appeal response:
If you are unhappy with your appeal response and are within 21 days from the date your appeal was rejected, you can submit a Standard Appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Please refer to the information provided within your response on how to do so.
www.theIAS.org
The Independent Appeals Service is the alternative dispute resolution scheme of our governing body, the International Parking Community.
Outside 21 days of the appeal response:
If you would like to appeal further but the 21 days to appeal as a Standard Appeal has elapsed, you will need to write to the Appeals department requesting to submit a Non-Standard Appeal with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).
Please write to the address provided below:
Appeal Department
UK Car Park Management Ltd
PO BOX 3114
Lancing
BN15 5BR
Please note, a £15.00 fee is payable to the IAS when submitting a Non-Standard Appeal.
Unfortunately, as we are unable to discuss a dispute, all further correspondence relating to the Parking Charge Notice via this email address will not be responded to.
Kind Regards
Info Team
That’s much better. Re-read the PCN and note that only the driver is liable for the charge. Technically, the recipient isn’t the Hirer, their employer is. However, as previously mentioned, you are dealing with intellectually malnourished people.
It is not an NtH although it does state that the recipient has been named as the Hirer. As a PCN, CPMUK cannot rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold the recipient liable for the charge. They state throughout the PCN that only the driver is liable.
As they still have no idea who the driver is and the PCN offers 28 days from the day after the date the notice is given (Wednesday 6th November) to appeal it, your friend now has until Wednesday 4th December to submit the appeal.
Simply appeal as the Hirer (even though, technically, they are not) with the following:QuoteI am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
As your Parking Charge Notice does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPMUK has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your PCN can only hold the driver liable. CPMUK have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Hopefully, this will finally be resolved if CPMUK accept defeat, although I highly doubt they will. This will then move on to IAS if your friend wants to bother with that kangaroo court.
I believe that the most likely outcome come is now going to be a claim which is easily defended and will, ultimately be discontinued, struck out or simply won.
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
As your Parking Charge Notice does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPMUK has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your PCN can only hold the driver liable. CPMUK have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
He cannot appeal to IAS.
Why?
This is a 'trade' procedure, not a regulatory body.
They will not deal with appeals other than from the driver, hirer or keeper because this would be outwith their Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice.
Your friend cannot insert themselves into this procedure, whether based on the creditor's misunderstanding or not, UNLESS they want to admit to being driver or give the creditor a belief that they were the driver which I would strongly recommend they do not.
OP, the appeal period to IAS is, according to the rejection, 'within 21 days of this rejection.'
Putting ambiguity to one side(from the date of the rejection or its service) what was the date and how received?
Well, seeing as your friend appealed to CPM and their rejection response was:"After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis."
They have obviously accepted that your friend is liable, according to their terminology. As your friend cannot, in reality, be liable as they are neither the Hirer or the Registered Keeper, this is their defence.
As for appealing to the IAS, that is their choice. Personally I doubt they'd accept any argument but I would like to be proved wrong.
If they were ever stupid enough to try and take it to court, they wouldn't get far with it. Then again, you are dealing with intellectually malnourished vermin. It's going to be a wait and see game.
To repeat what I posted previously.
Your friend cannot receive a PCN (which, although not a defined term under PoFA, is used in procedural parlance to mean Parking Charge Notice) because them demanding money from your friend is OUTSIDE PoFA because (although you haven't confirmed the point I will use as a working hypothesis) he is neither the keeper(a defined term) nor the hirer under a hire agreement with the keeper.
PoFA deals ONLY with keeper liability and in this context how the registered keeper may relieve themselves of their procedural liability if they are a vehicle-hire firm.
Your friend's position and future options would become clearer when this promised letter arrives.
Feel free to read for yourself:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
Until your friend receives the PCN addressed to them, we won't know whether liability has been transferred. I doubt that Tusker transferred the liability correctly in the first place so, technically, they could still be liable under PoFA.
I certainly don't have any faith in the IAS to adjudicate fairly, no matter how obvious to us that there isn't a c case to answer.
Your friend cannot receive a PCNHe can receive one if they send him one. Whether that would mean he owes any money demanded is another matter enitrely. It may be helpful to differentiate between what a company should do based on the relevant legislation, vs what they might choose to do.
The hirer is your friend's employer, yes?
Therefore as a matter of law your friend may not be held liable by the creditor in lieu of the keeper, it's simply not possible.
They may hold your friend liable as driver, in which case PoFA is irrelevant, there's no such thing as a NTH or NTK and the creditor may pursue them pure and simply as a party to the (alleged breached) of contract. There are NO 'notices' as such, the creditor as prospective claimant may issue a Letter of Claim but this is Administration of Justice procedure, not PoFA.
Having said this, let's see the 'notice which is for your[your friend's] records only' when it arrives.
While PoFA doesn't apply, the creditor's Code of Practice does and in this case it appears that an appeal to IAS should be made and should be successful simply because the creditor has no legal right under PoFA to hold your friend liable. The whys and wherefores of the breach etc. etc. are not the issue.
But we don’t know what your friend wrote in their appeal. Please show us.
I also remind you about my advice in this post on the 18t October on the likely outcome of any appeal:
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm-lease-vehicle/msg41391/#msg41391
Who received this letter? Who is it addressed to? Who is the "friend" that liability has been transferred to?
It admits that liability has been transferred to someone. It is not clear from what you say, who that is.
Your "friend" appears to be the person who liability has been transferred to but they have not yet received a PCN in their name. Liability as what? The Keeper? The Hirer?
PCN REFERENCE NUMBER:
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 18th August 2024
PAYMENT DUE DATE: 14th November 2024
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £60.00
Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was parked without a valid permit on display, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name. This is for your records only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to the full amount of £100.00.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;
• Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
• Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
• Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.
The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.
If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.
If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future.
CPM do accept it. Tusker are telling porkies. All they do is transfer liability to the Hirer, which in this case is the employer. They include copies of the required documents and then they are off the hook. Simple.
The employer then waits to receive an NtH and decides how they want to handle it. They either appeal themselves as the Hirer or they give employee a letter of authority to handle on the companies behalf.
Please keep us updated on progress.
They can't nominate a "driver". They have absolutely no idea who was driving. They can only nominate the Hirer. Only the hirer (although not the employer in this case) can identify the driver.
The issue is that the employee is the day to day keeper but that is not a recognised term as such. The only realistic way I could see this being handled lawfully would be if Tusker had transferred liability to the Hirer (the employer company). The employer would then have the option to do the appeal or, preferably, give the employee a letter of authority to appeal or deal with the NtH in the company name.
The employee would appeal and would, technically, be in a winning position because CPM would have failed to provide the copies of the required documents and there could then be no keeper liability. The only fly in that ointment would be after CPM reject the appeal (no doubt about this) is that any IAS appeal is likely to be unsuccessful and that would then leave CPM pestering the employer unless they accepted the letter of authority from the employer for the employee to deal with it.
As I said earlier, there are possible CRA 2015 points that need investigating from the point of view of the employee being under a contract to purchase the vehicle through the salary sacrifice scheme.
Reading between Tusker's jumble of words, what I think has happened here is that Tusker's have tried to nominate the OP directly, but as he is not the one Tusker's are hiring the vehicle to (that being his employer instead), CPM have not accepted this.
I don't necessarily think CPM are wrong to refuse if this is the case - if Tusker's hire agreement is between them and the employer, then they would not be able to provide to CPM the documents required under PoFA when nominating the OP.
Quite why Tusker's can't/won't nominate the employer instead, with whom they presumably do have the requisite contractual documents, who knows...
We are sorry to read that you are unsatisfied with Tusker's management of this fine.
Please be advised, this fine has been issued by UKCPM. This is one of many parking operators that does not accept a transfer of liability, this is due to Tusker's agreement with our drivers being a Salary Sacrifice Agreement, as the vehicle is on hire to your employer, as opposed to a Lease Agreement which would be accepted.
As a result of this, rather than making payment upon receipt of fines issued by these operators which we could do, we attempt to provide our drivers with the opportunity to manage the fines directly by forwarding our copy of the notice to them by email. This was sent to you on 25/09/2024. Please find attached a copy of the notification email.
In this email, it does explain that transfers are not accepted, and so if this notice is unactioned and we receive a second notification for the same offence, the fine will be paid and recharged to you.
Please find attached a copy of your Salary Sacrifice Agreement which you signed on 15/11/2023 before the vehicle was delivered.
Under the heading Responsibility, it does state;
12. Understand that parking or congestion charges and any other fines are their responsibility and if incurred will be recharged to them along with an administration fee.
13. Understand and agree that the Employer shall be entitled to deduct from salary, or other payments due to them, any money which they may owe or be liable to pay in respect of the Vehicle arising from their use of it at any time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the terms of the Scheme Policy. The Employee accepts that if the Employer is unable to recover any amounts owing from the Employee by way of such deductions, then the Employee must pay to the Employer the relevant amounts owing as a debt and upon demand.
More information on how we manage fines can also be found in your Driver Guide.
We received the second notice on 10/10/2024, and payment would now usually be made. However, we have checked online and our team have not yet made the payment. If you would like to appeal, you can by using the Third Party Letter of Authorisation which was attached to your notification email. This is our permission for you to discuss the fine on our behalf as the registered keeper, and we have received many refunds and accepted appeals from UKCPM before. Appeals can be made online.
We have asked our processing team not to make the payment on this occasion to allow you to continue your appeal, however please be advised that if we received a third notice, this will be made and recharged to yourself.
Should you remain unsatisfied with this response, please contact our Resolutions Team on resolutions@tuskerdirect.com.
Kind regards,
The Fleet Admin Team
Given Tusker's correspondence so far, if I were a betting man I'd say them having provided CPM with the required documentation is a very big 'if'.
"As discussed, we need to obtain proof from our fines processing team to confirm the authority refused to transfer over liability to you.
We will email you to let you know once we have heard back. "
Hi,
We are still waiting for a response from UKCPM.
So, Tusker need to provide evidence of the refusal by CPM to accept transfer of liability and the reason given by CPM.
They need to read the specific paragraphs of the Act to make it clear that CPM refusing to accept transfer of liability is irrelevant. There is an Act of parliament that specifically states that as long as the hire company follows the correct procedure, liability is transferred. If CPM refuse to accept the transfer, they are acting unlawfully.
The actions taken by both Tusker and CPM are unlawful due to non-compliance with the legal framework set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Why Tusker's Actions are Unlawful
Failing to Properly Transfer Liability Under PoFA: By providing the hirer with a letter of authorisation and a copy of the the NtK, instead of ensuring that CPM issues a Notice to Hirer (NtH), Tusker is not following the correct legal process for transferring liability. The hirer cannot be lawfully pursued based on a Notice to Keeper that was never addressed to them.
Potential Unlawful Billing of the Hirer: If Tusker pays the parking charge and then seeks to recover the amount from the hirer, it is acting unlawfully because the hirer has not been formally made liable under the law. The hirer has no legal obligation to pay a charge based solely on Tusker’s actions, as the proper transfer of liability procedure was not followed.
Why CPM's Actions are Unlawful
Refusing to Accept Transfer of Liability After Receiving Proper Documentation: If CPM has been provided with the hirer’s details and the required documents, as per PoFA paragraph 13, they are legally obligated to pursue the hirer by issuing an NtH. By continuing to hold Tusker liable even though they complied with the requirements of PoFA paragraph 13 for transfer of liability, CPM is not complying with the law.
Attempting to Enforce a Parking Charge Without Proper Transfer of Liability: CPM’s continued pursuit of Tusker for the parking charge despite having the hirer’s information means they are attempting to enforce a charge against a party who is not liable under PoFA. This goes against the intent of the legislation, which aims to ensure that liability for parking charges is properly transferred to the party who was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.
Resolving This Issue Through the Legal System
If CPM continues to pursue Tusker for the parking charge, and if Tusker pays the charge and then seeks to recover it from the hirer, the following legal steps should be taken:
Tusker Should Challenge CPM in Court: Tusker should bring a claim against CPM for failing to accept the transfer of liability. They should argue that they complied with PoFA by providing the necessary documents to transfer liability to the hirer, and therefore, CPM’s continued pursuit of them is unlawful.
The Hirer Could Dispute the Charge if Billed by Tusker: If Tusker pays the parking charge and tries to recover it from the hirer, the hirer should contest this on the grounds that they were never legally made liable under PoFA. Since CPM did not issue an NtH to the hirer, there is no legal basis for Tusker to demand payment from the hirer.
Legal Recourse for the Hirer Against Tusker: If Tusker tries to recover the parking charge from the hirer, the hirer should seek legal recourse against Tusker for attempting to charge them unlawfully. This should include challenging any attempts to deduct the amount from wages (if a salary sacrifice scheme is in effect) or disputing the invoice in a small claims court.
The Proper Resolution
To resolve the situation in accordance with the law:• CPM should issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) after receiving the hirer’s details from Tusker. This correctly and lawfully transfers liability to the hirer.
• Tusker should not attempt to recover the charge from the hirer unless CPM has properly issued an NtH and the hirer has been lawfully made liable.
• If CPM refuses to issue the NtH, Tusker should challenge CPM's actions rather than paying the charge. This approach would uphold the legal framework established by PoFA and ensure that liability is correctly assigned.
So, this needs to be explained in detail to both Tusker and CPM. If Tusker filled in that form and provided copies of the requested documents, liability has been transferred whether CPM accepts it or not. The ball is then in CPMs court and if they are acting lawfully, they must send an NtH to the Hirer. If they don't, then the hirer is not liable. Tusker is not liable either because they followed the lawful process to transfer liability.
For heavens sake! Tell your friend to tell the "fines processing team" that they never had to get in touch with CPM to transfer the liability. They only had to send the tear off form and the copies of the requested documents to CPM and that would be the end of the matter. They are obfuscating.
They really are exposing their intellectual malnourishment and shameful lack of understanding. That or they are trying to wriggle out of their liability due to their incompetence.
There is not much time left for them to transfer the liability. If CPM were really so stupid to refuse to accept a transfer of liability, they are in breach of PoFA, KADOE and the BPA CoP.
If this was done by phone, follow up in writing, so that you have evidence.
I’ve no idea how your friends salary sacrifice is set up with Tusker and is beyond the scope of advice we give here. However, as you have shown in your post, it even says in their website:QuoteIf your vehicle is issued with a private land fine, where possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to you for settlement.
Whilst the author of that bit calls it a “private land fine”, it clearly states that “they will always request a transfer of liability”. So, it is pretty obvious that whoever issued the letter and authorisation, was not being truthful.
Make sure your friend sends that letter urgently to Tusker so that liability is transferred correctly and before the deadline so that he can be issued an NtH and then appeal it as the hirer and most likely not be liable due the inevitable screw up by CPM.
If your vehicle is issued with a private land fine, where possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to you for settlement.
It's not clear from that letter whether the hire firm have actually paid anything yet. If they haven't, the hirer's priority for now is to get them to actually nominate the hirer.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
Fleet Admin Team
Tuskerdirect Limited
Building 4, Hatters Lane
Croxley Green Business Park
Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Reference [PCN Reference Number] for Vehicle Registration [Vehicle Registration Number]
I am writing regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and Tusker's correspondence dated 25th September 2024, in which you claimed that "the private parking operator will not allow you to transfer liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the charge notice." This statement is patently false and misrepresents the process clearly set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The Notice to Keeper issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM) clearly includes a very bold heading at the top of the reverse side: "Vehicle Hirers." This section explicitly outlines the procedure for transferring liability under Schedule 4, paragraph 13 of POFA, allowing the registered keeper to transfer liability by providing the hirer's details, the hire agreement, and a signed statement of liability. How could Tusker miss such a prominent instruction and then claim to me, in no uncertain terms, that it is not possible to transfer liability? This is mendacious and it demonstrates a disregard for the proper handling of this matter.
If Tusker does not follow the correct procedure to transfer liability by the deadline of 21st October 2024, then Tusker will remain liable for the PCN. Should Tusker choose to pay the charge notice instead of transferring liability correctly, this will amount to an admission of liability as the Registered Keeper. Any attempt to pass this charge on to me, the hirer, would be unlawful and would breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), as it would deprive me of my statutory right to appeal the PCN as the correct party. Under PoFA, the driver, the keeper and the hirer are separate legal entities.
Your handling of this matter has been wholly inadequate, and the misinformation provided undermines my ability to contest the PCN fairly. The CRA prohibits the imposition of unfair practices that deny consumers their legal rights, and Tusker’s conduct in this situation certainly falls into that category.
If the recipient of this letter is unable to grasp the seriousness and urgent nature of this issue, I strongly recommend forwarding it to Tusker's legal advisors for review, as any consequences arising from a failure to comply with the correct legal procedures will rest entirely with Tusker. I expect a written confirmation that the transfer of liability has been completed in line with POFA before 21st October 2024.
Failure to comply may result in further legal action and a formal complaint to regulatory authorities, as I will not hesitate to protect my rights under the law.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Vehicle Hirers
If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was on hire at the time of the parking incident please let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).
(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.
(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—
(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;
(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;
The clueless lease company, Tusker, has not complied with he instructions on the NtK in order to transfer liability away from them to the Hirer. So, even if the Hirer does nothing, CPMUK will hold Tusker liable and will pursue them.
The Hirer can try and appeal as the Hirer but CPMUK is not required to accept any appeal unless it is in the name of the person or company named on the NtK.
If Tusker end up paying then PCN because of their failure to transfer liability using the correct process as shown in the NtK and as per PoFA paragraph 13 and then try to charge the Hirer, they will have done so unlawfully.
That then becomes a different matter and not a parking one. CPMUK would be laughing all the way to the bank and are no longer involved in the matter. If Tusker realises their mistake after they are sued by the Hirer for the amount they incorrectly charged the Hirer and want their money back, they’d have to sue CPMUK. Good luck with that, but not our concern.
The Hirer, assuming it is not too late, which I fear it is, must either instruct Tusker to comply with the instructions in the NtK and do a PoFA complaint transfer of liability to absolve themselves of liability, or the Hirer must try and persuade CPMUK that they have authority to deal with the PCN, but they can only do that as the Keeper, which they are not. The Hirer has to persuade CPMUK to issue a valid NtH, which is very doubtful they would agree to.
You never know though. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished ex-clampers and they may just send one, not being able to comply with PoFA paragraph 14 but realising anyway as they never comply with under normal procedures.
As far as a car that is leased/hired, the Registered Keeper (the hire/lease company) receives the NtK. If they want to transfer liability way from them as the Keeper, they need to do so by providing the hirer/lessee details to the PPC. Once they have done that, the PPC should send a Notice to Hirer (NtH) to the hirer/lessee.
At this point, neither the PPC nor the lessor/hire company know who was driving. All they do know is the name of the Keeper and/or the Hirer. They only way the PPC would know the drivers identity is if the hirer blabbed it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.
In 99.999% of cases, the PPC fails to provide copies of the necessary documents with the NtH. So, even if everything else in the NtH is PoFA compliant, by failing to proved the cookie of the required documents, they have failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA and so, cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Hirer.
What you showed us is a copy of the NtK received by the lease company. If the lease company followed the correct procedure for transferring liability which means they had to proved copies of certain agreements as noted in paragraph 13 of PoFA and sent the copy of the anti to the Hirer, there can be no comeback against them by the PPC.
Hopefully, for your friends sake, the lease company did comply with the requirements of para 13 of PoFA and didn’t simply only send a copy of the NtK to your friend. If that was the case, then the PPC will hold the lease company liable as the Keeper and if they’re like a lot of clueless lease/hire companies, they will simply pay then chargers and charge it back to the hirer/lessee.
For now, your friend is waiting for the NtH in their name from the PPC. Until an NtH is received, your friend cannot appeal the copy of the NtK that is I. The lease company’s name.