Free Traffic Legal Advice

Simply being driven in the zone is proof enough. On a different strand of this, I understood that the BB discount applies only when the BB holder is in the car. You've only suggested a single BB holder but two cars claiming exemption. Or have I misread TfL's website?

Can I try and simplify this.

The person liable is the 'keeper' (registered keeper for this purpose at the moment) at the time of the contravention. So, are you saying that both the seller and you were registered as keepers on the same day and that the issue is at what time they ceased to be keeper and you became the RK and how this change is recorded by DVLA?

Ownership in the normal sense is not relevant so I would leave this to one side for the moment. TfL only act on the basis of info provided by DVLA.

Is/was the vehicle hired for a period of less than 6 months or is it leased?

It's vitally important.

You were parked in a permit holder's only bay and acknowledge that there was a sign to this effect some 4-5 car lengths to your rear which you would therefore have passed. Photo no. 5 posted by you is one taken by the CEO to show your car relative to this sign.

You acted upon the wrong sign i.e. on the other side of a 2-way street.

Shame, as the PCN grounds are misstated, but the council don't normally give way on this as the informal stage therefore 'I need to resolve this before any NTO is issued, as Tusker will automatically pay and then pass the cost to me, removing my ability to appeal properly.' is a tall order IMO.

I don't know whether knowing more about the move would add weight to a simple submission of the facts e.g. there's no point updating a V5C until one's in position to receive mail at the new address etc.

Coming to this late, but it seems as if all internal processes have yet to be exhausted e.g. complaint to council's Chief internal Auditor, a challenge to the external auditor regarding the council's accounts* etc. Also, as I read it, the council are undertaking a review. Have enquiries been made regarding how this is to be conducted e.g. is any external opinion being sought and if so from whom, when and how will the outcome be published etc?

*- I think there are conditions which apply:https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Council-accounts-a-guide-to-your-rights.pdf

Extract from DfT submission to Transport Select Committee:
The authority’s auditor may decline to certify the accounts of a local authority that has used on-street parking income (and all enforcement income) in a way that is not in accordance with the provisions of section 55 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act. Local authorities are ultimately responsible to their electorate to deliver effective parking strategies and use any revenue surpluses appropriately.

I think you should put your points to Merton first, at least give yourself a chance.

The 14-day risk-free period during which the discount is maintained even if they reject ends today.

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.