Free Traffic Legal Advice

The PCN was issued under the LLA&TFL Act 2003 which provides:

4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above [regarding representations] are—

...........
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—

(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

....


9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and “vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).


The law:

7)This section [of the Road Traffic Offenders Act] applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months

So, is your leasing agreement for 'a fixed period of less than six months'?

If not, then you may argue that, irrespective of the minutiae of the events, you MAY NOT be considered to be the person liable for the penalty.

It is the council's burden to show that you may be held to be the liable person.

IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell.

If they accepted reps from the leasing company to the effect that they are a vehicle hire company etc, then this is b******s and irrespective of who did what, when, with what signs etc. etc. ....you may not as a matter of law be held liable for any penalty arising therefrom.

Please get back to this fundamental issue.

With respect, it's not a PZ sign, that's of a different form:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

Section 6.

..this crossed with others...

I think you misunderstand the associated plate meaning.

See the TSM https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

Putting aside the fact that the sign shouldn't be used, its associated plate means(confusingly IMO) that the prohibition is 24/7 except for those Sat hours. Your 'contravention' didn't occur on a Saturday.

OP, IMO you've spent more time canvassing opinion regarding prospective parking options than dealing with the PCN.

Of course the authority said no. You did not have a statutory defence, simply a range of mitigating arguments. You are only a party to this matter until a Notice to Owner is served on the registered keeper because liability rests with them. This could be Enterprise or perhaps even a leasing company.

So we're likely at this stage of the process: 'Enterprise are poor at dealing with NTOs which would heap confusion on the whole process. You could play the game, but not without some risk.'

Are you the hirer of the vehicle? If yes, then you are liable to Enterprise contractually and prospectively financially.

Unless the PCN is paid then the registered keeper would be served with a NTO. If you're the hirer, then you know your contractual liabilities and Enterprise's options.

Can we get back to this PCN and Enterprise pl.

The regs:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/5

They don't 'allow' anything, the law prevents them from demanding a penalty. Pompous oafs!

But no penalty charge may be imposed under paragraph (1) in relation to a parking contravention where—

(a)the vehicle is stationary in a designated parking place and is left beyond the permitted parking period, and

(b)the period for which it is left beyond the permitted parking period does not exceed 10 minutes.

In as much as the 'time of contravention', which is a mandatory requirement in a PCN, can be inferred from the PCN which only states an observation period, this would be 8.53.

The period of 'permitted parking' ended at 8.43.

53-43=10 minutes.

Self-evidently, 10 minutes 'does not exceed 10 minutes'.

The demand for the penalty is unlawful; the PCN must therefore be cancelled.

If the authority continues to gainsay what is self-evident and reject these representations, I shall apply for a costs award at the tribunal hearing.

I am just wondering how I would prove that no such thing was received...

Bad news...You can't.
Good news..you're not required to do so. Follow procedure, complete the form correctly at the appropriate time, sign(a statement of truth regarding these matters), send to the Traffic Enforcement Centre in time and the CC will be cancelled.

Read this for background:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/understanding-enforcement-process

As I've read elsewhere, the BB booklet is guidance, not the law.

I would contend that the regulatory requirements of LATOR are not set aside by the Exemption for Disabled Persons regs:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/683/regulation/5/made

A,B and C are straightforward.
 Each of the following is an excepted area–

(a)the City of London;

(b)the City of Westminster;

(c)the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;

As for D..

(d)that part of the London borough of Camden, bounded by and including the borough boundary, Euston Road, Upper Woburn Place, Tavistock Square, Woburn Place, Russell Square, Southampton Row, Theobalds Road and Clerkenwell Road.

Fine. Submit SD on grounds Made representations...did not receive etc.

As always, adopt a belt and braces approach by checking their website periodically and when you receive the OfR or know that one's been issued submit the SD to TEC. (NB. your signature needs to be witnessed).

The reason for my questions is that when TEC revoke the OfR and cancel the CC the authority must refer the matter to the adjudicator who as a group seem to be getting more questioning about whether submissions to TEC were valid. While they cannot go behind the court's decision, they can make enquiries of prospective appellants and if not satisfied could direct that the penalty is paid without a hearing. Your correspondence with TfL is totally consistent with you not receiving the NOR, so no problems there.