Free Traffic Legal Advice

Great points, thanks. Agree that there's an estoppel argument (and that, in any event, nobody is particularly likely to look too kindly on the PPC notionally accepting the transfer of liability and then attempting to backpedal following their own failings).

I only care because I expect the hire company may well end up paying the PCN and then attempting to charge it back to me, hence I'll be copying them on my appeal to the PPC putting them on notice that, if they've complied with POFA then they have no liability and, if they haven't, that it's their problem and not mine - and that either way I won't be responsible for any charges they incur or choose to pay as a result.

Expect that should do it.

Out of interest, are you aware of any authority on this point:

However... By sending the NtH to the hirer, the PPC may be seen as having accepted the information provided by the hire company, even if it was incomplete. In doing so, the PPC is acting as if the liability has been transferred to the hirer. This could imply that the PPC is choosing to pursue the hirer based on the available information, regardless of the missing documents.

Thanks - that's really helpful and accords exactly with my understanding!

Apologies if there is an answer to this elsewhere but I have searched and couldn't find it.

In circumstances where:

1. a PPC has issued a NTK to the RK (hiring company);
2. The RK has responded to the PPC identifying the hirer but failed to provide a copy of the hire agreement etc;
3. The PPC has nonetheless issued a NTH to the hirer identified by the RK (but naturally fails to provide the accompanying documents required by para 14(2) of POFA Sch 4),

the NTH of course fails to comply with POFA... BUT what is to prevent the PPC going back to the RK hiring company and pursuing them under the original NTK, given their failure to comply with para 13(2) of POFA Sch 4? In which case the RK would then be liable to pay the PCN, would likely do so, and the hirer would then be left to fight it out with the RK as to whether or not the RK is entitled to pass on the charge to the hirer under the terms of the hire agreement?

Everything I have seen suggests that the PPC cannot revert to the RK once it has issued the NTH (so the hirer is effectively home free) but I've not been able to find an explanation as why, pursuant to POFA, that is the case.

Any help gratefully received.

Thanks

Just bumping this, with apologies if that's frowned upon. If so, I'll wait patiently. Just wanted to make sure it didn't get lost 

Thanks. Happy to post the PCN etc if required but I thought it simpler not to as I'm only looking for advice at this stage on a specific but generic point, i.e. the existence of a right to appeal a moving traffic PCN issued in London on the grounds of procedural impropriety.

I had thought that s1(4)(e) was probably the only available route but it didn't really seem to fit, but I suppose it would be bizarre if there was no right to appeal for this reason simply because the PCN was issued in London.