Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Please repost the PCN with PCN number, date, and car reg visible. Your car reg is visible to all and sundry when you drive around. We can then go and look at their video.
Is this the location ?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1hTnYNjeL5zcCUZi7
Please tell your approach, (left or right turn, or head-on)
The discount running out is just part of the process, if you go to adjudication the results is going to be (unless there are particularly unusual circumstances) either win and pay nothing or lose and pay the full rate.
No, the over-run is irrelevant and will only make them ignore the key PoFA point and answer this point instead.
Lastly (I'm on Gemini's appeal site now), what should I choose as the reason?
Appeal along the lines of:
I am the hirer of the vehicle and, under no obligation to do so, will not be identifying the driver. Your PCN does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer liability to me as hirer (namely failure to include the required documents), and I am therefore unable to assist you further in this matter. I look forward to your confirmation the PCN has been cancelled.
Make sure you don't inadvertently click on a 'I was the driver' button.
They will probably reject it; and they are IAS for subsequent appeal so not that high a chance of success there either. So you would need to tough out the 'debt collector' letters and see if they make a small claims court case. This should be easily defendable on the above basis.
Did you receive any other documents with the PCN?
Please show us the back of the notice, and please confirm (in addition to the question above) if you are the hirer of the said vehicle.
Don't exclude the term time argument as all grounds should be put to an adjudicator.
Stick with it.
I won't go into the intricacies of whether a lease can be considered a disposal of a vehicle such that keepership can be considered to be transferred. It's fact specific and not relevant here because these were not the grounds under which the lease company made reps and the authority accepted reps under the 'hiring agreement' etc. argument when there wasn't a hiring agreement. The authority were NOT allowed to accept these reps.
A suggestion:
Appeal to adjudicator against rejection of representations - PCN *********
I refer to the above and specifically the Notice to Owner issued to me on ******.
When I received the NTO, I assumed, and therefore did not consider the alternative, that the council had a lawful basis for demanding from me the penalty to which the PCN itself referred. I therefore made representations on substantive grounds. Subsequently, I was informed by my lease company of their NTO and that they had sought to transfer liability to me as if they were a vehicle hire firm and the car was hired to me under a hiring agreement. The council accepted these grounds despite there not being proof that a hiring agreement existed and that the lessee was a vehicle hire company.
But as can be seen from the attached lease, which is summarised below, this is not the case:
Lessee: Select Car Leasing;
Form of agreement: Personal contract hire;
Term: 3 years commencing May 2024 and terminating May 2027;
I was not previously aware of the legal effect of the distinction between a lease and a hiring agreement in this context, although I can now see from the Chief Adjudicator's annual reports in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 that I was not alone and that the matter has exercised him and the tribunal for some time:
Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between short-term hire and long
leases are not well understood by motorists and authorities.
Adjudicators have found that despite the restrictive statutory provisions which are
re-stated in case law, parties are still not grasping provisions. Adjudicators noted that
some authorities have allowed transfer even when the required evidence has not
that their representations have been accepted by some but not other authorities.
I therefore respectfully submit that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council in seeking to treat me as being the person liable for the penalty charge and that given that there is precedent case law my appeal should succeed on these grounds.
But OP, pl let me know whether the PCH means that you never own the car which must be returned at the end of the term.
I've read up on the H C Andersen point and can draft something for you on this point which is objective and regulatory and therefore adjudicators have no discretion if the facts fit. But first pl give us details of your lease e.g. from whom, when it started and when it terminates etc.Thanks for offering to write up a draft - Please let me know if there's any more info you need from me?
I've read up on the H C Andersen point and can draft something for you on this point which is objective and regulatory and therefore adjudicators have no discretion if the facts fit. But first pl give us details of your lease e.g. from whom, when it started and when it terminates etc.
So no reply yet to reps?
