Free Traffic Legal Advice

The hirer does not become the registered keeper but they are the day to day keeper for the purposes of PoFA.

The hire/lease company discharges their liability as keeper as soon as they give the creditor the hirers details AND include a copy of the documents in PoFA 13(2). The creditor cannot come back at a later date and try to recover the charge from the RK.

If the creditor wishes to hold the hirer (day to day keeper) liable for the charge in the absence of the drivers identity, they must then send an NtH to the hirer that complies with the requirements of PoFA section 14. It is at this point that 99.9% of all creditors manage to fail to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA to hold the hirer liable for the charge.

At all times the driver remains liable for the charge. As the creditor inevitably fails to transfer that liability in the overwhelming majority of cases of PCNs involving hire/lease vehicles, the creditor can only hope that the hirer is one of the majority of hirers who are not aware of their rights and protections and reveals themselves to be both the hirer AND the driver.

This is why a PCN issued to a hire/lease vehicle is considered to be a “golden ticket”. As long as the hirer does not reveal the identity of the driver, there is no legal recourse for the creditor to recover the charge from the hirer. The creditor cannot presume or infer that the hirer was the driver.

Nothing above stops the creditor from trying to intimidate the hirer into paying the charge. These ex-clamper, unregulated private parking companies will, in most cases, threaten the hirer through debt collector letters and even initiating a court claim in the hope that the hirer is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will not only pay the charge but also pay the fake added debt recovery fee/damages.

As long as the hirer has received the advice and understands that they cannot be held liable for the charge if the creditor has failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA AND have not already dobbed themselves in the mire by revealing themselves to have also been the driver, they won’t be paying a penny to the ex-clamper cowboys (Hansard).

To clarify, we're saying that the Finance Company (as the RK) names the Hire Company as the hirer; but the hire company is then unable to recursively name me as the hirer.

This is because the POFA only makes provision for the RK to name a hirer?

Could the Finance Company be able to name me as the hirer directly under guidance from the Hire Company perhaps? Presumably not as there isn't a statement signed by the Finance Company and I per 13(1)(a).

In any case, full wording of the Hire Companies email to me attached - some relevant bits highlighted, sounds like liability will pass from the Finance Company to the Hire Company; and then they'll pass the hirers details to Premier Park (I'm assuming their wording of driver is poorly chosen here, how can they know who was driving).

We'll ignore the fact that a private invoice is not a 'road traffic offence, penalty charge, or fine' for now - one case at a time (I've already said I don't authorise the deduction, will be disputing it, etc etc).

There is no mention of “registered” keeper in PoFA. The Act allows a person/company that, in the course of their business hires/leases vehicles to third parties to discharge their liability for the charge as long as they comply with the requirements as set out in PoFA. I don’t see that recursively doing this is not specifically allowed.

There are two separate issues here. Neither the RK, hire company or creditor can know who the driver was.

Whether you are liable to pay the hire company an administration fee is a completely separate matter. However, based on this additional documentation you have shown us, it is doubtful that they can hold you liable for that. You are likely to be covered under the CRA as you never committed any “offence” nor incurred any “parking fine”.

For now, you just need to understand that the hirer is not liable to the creditor (PPC) for the alleged debt.

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves here? The judgment referred to above was made in 1996 and was in reference to a penalty notice issued by an authority.

PoFA was introduced in 2012. According to PoFA, “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. It has nothing to do with who owns the vehicle and since that judgment, every V5C registration document has printed in large font that the document is NOT proof of ownership.

The judgment referred to above, may apply in the case of a penalty notice issued under bylaws because the archaic reference to "owner" is still used in those instances. In this instance, it is already agreed that there is no need to reference "ownership". Only driver or keeper liability needs to be referenced.

+1.

Good, you've been named as hirer. I assume they didn't send you any additional documents alongside the PCN? If so, here's an initial suggestion for an appeal:


If appealing online be careful not to tick any boxes etc. that reveal who was driving. Keep an eye on your spam folder and if they don't respond within the 35 days allowed then chase them. See if others have any comments.

Wording sounds good, although to be rock solid - the second point should refer to 14(2) rather than 13(2) right? (13 is for the hire company, 14 is for the hirer?)

You could change this to  "Not serving the additional documents mentioned in 13(2) of the Act, as required by 14(2)(a) of the Act" for clarity (I think I used an old version of my own template above).

Should delay my appeal until 21 days after the issue date so they can't come back and provide the documents within the 'relevant period' (per 14(3) )

You can do for a belt and braces approach. Although the 'relevant period' is "the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor." - there's a good chance those documents haven't been given to the creditor in the first place.

They are not even relying on PoFA

Indeed, and my suggested appeal says as much - I'm personally in favour of at least making reference to PoFA (and pointing out that they're choosing not to rely on it), to demonstrate that you're well-informed and potentially increase the chances of them giving up and cancelling now rather than pushing the matter to POPLA.

Appeal rejected, unsurprisingly. Tried to have some fun with it.

As the hirer I decline to provide the details of the driver who, as your letter states, is liable to pay the parking charge. You have not met the conditions of Schedule 4, Section 14 of the PoFA 2012 which would allow liability to pass to the hirer. Happy to go into more detail at POPLA if you want to waste your money and my time by rejecting this appeal!

Whilst we note your comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that payment wasnt made for the duration of the stay. Therefore, as your vehicle was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions as advertised on the signage displayed on site, this PCN has been issued to you correctly.

Time for POPLA! Points:

1. Not PoFA compliant, hirer cannot be held liable. (slam dunk on this alone)
2. No evidence of landowner authority. (just interested in reading the contract tbh)
3. My initial argument of 10 mins grace period being insufficient to read and agree to app T&Cs