Free Traffic Legal Advice

Is it the case that the vehicle hirer in the current case is the same person or entity to whom liability was recently transferred for PCNs CU67189608 & CU67327869?

For that matter is the same vehicle involved?

As I understand you the hire company maintains two discrete hire agreements in respect of any given hire of one of your vehicles? Upon receipt of a PCN one or the other agrrement will be sent with representations to the Enforcement Authority depending on the legislation that the PCN is issued under? The hire agreements will have differing rental periods?

However the bottom line is that you, the hirer, have a Notice of Rejection in respect of a PCN that the hire company received. This should be a London Locsl Authorities and Transport for London PCN.  I plan to appeal to tribunal as i still have 20 days to do so.  PS- the driver paid £65 already - can still file tribunal case?


The options on the table are pay-up or appeal to the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator can decide if the Hire Agreement that you provided to Camden is valid or not. You'll be in for the £130 penalty if you lose.

I would register an appeal. State that you rely on your representations and that further evidence may follow. Ask for a personal hearing, you can vary this to a telephone hearing later. Use the time to research the status of the hire agreements.

- Yes same vehicle and same person. Correct, we maintain two hire agreements, and yes they will have different return dates.  The PCN was from Local Authority CAmden Council - But can the adjudicator rely on previous PCNs? is it not the case that if the PCN is paid then the matter is closed?  How far back can the council compare PCNs?  is it not just the case of council treating each case on its own merit?  But if i pay doesn't it mean everytime i send a hire agreement they will compare with previous PCN, have they now invalidated our hire agreements going forward - despite us having agreement with hirer

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

But the issue is the hire agreement dates not the contravention

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

Please see below two hire agreements

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.