Free Traffic Legal Advice

If you received a Notice to Hirer (as you have shown) and it was not accompanied by

• a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

• a copy of the hire agreement;

• a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and

• a copy of the original NtK.

then as long as the driver is not identified, the liability can not be transferred from the driver to the hirer.

I seriously doubt that what you have shown us is the Notice to Hirer (NtH). If what you have shown is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) from the Enterprise, you cannot and must not respond until you receive the NtH in your name as the Hirer.

Enterprise are utter feckwits and there is no "fine" and no "offence" has been committed. An NtK is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver from an unregulated private parking company.

You should also check your hire agreement for any mention of parking charges from private companies because the wording in that letter means that they have likely breached the agreement by charging a £35 admin fee for a fine or offence, which neither apply in this instance.

When you do, you appeal on a single point of no Hirer liability because CPM will have failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA  para 14. Forget all the other rubbish you were spouting about ANPR images and brake lights being on and not leaving the vehicle etc.

As long as the driver is not identified, they have no idea who that is unless you blab it to them inadvertently or otherwise. Only the driver can be liable and the Hirer is under no legal obligation to identify them to an unregulated private parking company.

As long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known Hirer (the recipient of the Notice to Hirer (NtH)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtH is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Hirer.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. [Operator] has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. CPM have no hope should you ever attempt to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

What EXACTLY does the lease/hire agreement say about parking charges? If there is no mention of civil charges (as opposed to 'penalties' or 'offences' or 'fines'), then they cannot charge you if it is not in the agreement. Until you confirm the wording, it is difficult to advise further on how to handle the £35 admin fee except you can tell your bank that it is in dispute and to charge it back to you for now.

A private parking charge is a civil contractual sum, not a statutory “fine” or “penalty”. It’s also not a “parking fee” (i.e. the price to park).

Clause 1 ties “any associated administrative costs” to the listed items: traffic violations, parking fees, fines/penalties, tolls. A private PCN is none of those.

Clause 2’s examples (“illegal parking or speeding, bus lane, congestion charge, tolls, traffic offence/contravention”) are all public-law liabilities. Under the ejusdem generis principle, the broader words (“charges, costs”) are read in line with those examples—i.e. statutory/regulatory, not private invoices.

If the lease/hire company wants an admin fee for private PCNs, the contract should say so expressly (e.g. “parking charge notices issued by private parking companies”). Yours doesn’t.

I suggest you send the following to Enterprise and CC yourself:

Subject: Dispute of Administration Charge Relating to Private Parking Charge Notice – Rental Agreement No. [Insert Number]

Dear Enterprise Rent-A-Car UK Customer Services,

I am writing regarding my recent rental (Agreement No. [Insert Number]) and the proposed administration charge in relation to a private parking charge notice (PCN) allegedly incurred during the rental period.

Please note that I will dispute the validity of any administrative charge applied in connection with this private parking invoice and will instruct my card provider to initiate a chargeback in the event of any deduction.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. A private parking charge notice is a civil contractual sum, not a statutory fine or penalty. The rental agreement at Clause 1 under “Traffic Violations, Parking and Tolls” states that the renter is liable for “traffic violations; parking fees, fines and/or penalties; toll fees and/or penalties; and any associated administrative costs.” These terms clearly refer to public-law liabilities such as fixed penalties or statutory fines, not civil invoices issued by private parking operators.

2. Clause 4(a)(viii) of the Rental Terms and Conditions (page 4 of the January 2025 edition) requires the renter to pay “any administrative fines, fees, charges, costs, penalties, or other fines … such as fines or fees for illegal parking or speeding, non-compliance with bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence or contravention in any country, in all cases, and not caused by Owner.” Every example given concerns a public-law traffic or road regulation offence. Applying the ejusdem generis principle, the broad words “charges” or “costs” must be interpreted in line with those examples, meaning statutory or regulatory liabilities, not private contractual claims.

3. The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) guidance confirms that private parking charge notices are civil contractual matters, not statutory fines or penalties. The BVRLA instructs rental firms to transfer liability for private PCNs to the hirer under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, rather than paying them. The guidance also states that a hire company may only pay and recharge a private PCN (and levy any related administrative fee) if the rental agreement expressly authorises it.

4. After reviewing Enterprise’s current Rental Terms and Conditions (January 2025, pages 1–8), I have found no clause that expressly permits an administration fee to be charged for a private parking charge notice issued by a private parking company. All references to administration charges are framed in the context of statutory traffic or toll violations.

Accordingly, any deduction of an administration fee in connection with a private parking charge notice would be unauthorised and contrary to the written terms of the agreement. Please ensure that no such fee or payment is taken from my account. Should a deduction nevertheless occur, I will dispute the charge in full and initiate a formal chargeback without delay.

Please confirm in writing that no administration fee will be charged in relation to any private parking notice, or alternatively, provide the precise clause reference from your Rental Terms and Conditions that you believe authorises such a fee.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
Rental Agreement No.: [Insert Number]
Date of Rental: [Insert Date]
Contact Email: [Insert Email]

Hi, I recieved the following response from CPM. It worries me that they state that liability has been transferred into my name when I never said who was driving.

Any advice on how to proceed would be most appreciated. Thanks.

"Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.

The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.

Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 34 minutes with no permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.       

Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name. This is for your records only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to the full amount of £100.00. 

Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.

To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;

Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28 days of this rejection.

The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.

If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.

If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future."

When you sent the appeal, did you do so as the Hirer? Did you select any menu option that said you were appealing as the driver? Did you add or remove anything from the appeal advised?

The PCN you showed us is an NtH because it says on the front:

We have issued Parking Charge 70112670 to a vehicle you have been named as hiring because on...

As long as you are absolutely sure you did not identify as the driver, inadvertently or otherwise, is nonsense in law and an abuse of process, especially after a Hirer appeal against a Notice to Hirer has already been made and rejected.

Once a Notice to Hirer (NtH) has been served and the Hirer has used their one internal appeal, the operator has two lawful routes only: accept and cancel, or reject and offer ADR (IAS). There is no lawful “third step” where they get to reject the appeal and then somehow reset the process by issuing a new notice.

In a hire case, liability can only ever move to the Hirer if the operator has strictly complied with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14. That means serving, within the statutory 21 days, a valid NtH accompanied by copies of the original NtK, the hire agreement, and the hirer’s statement of liability. If those documents were not enclosed with the original NtH, PoFA liability to the Hirer never arose and cannot be created later by sending some “new notice”.

Anything they send now is either just a duplicate with no legal effect, or an out-of-time attempt to cure fatal PoFA defects. Either way, it does not give them a second bite of the cherry, nor does it create a new appeal stage.

This wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to argue it in court. They will issue a claim but it will never reach a hearing. However, you should send the following as your IAS appeal, for what it's worth:

I am the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The operator’s rejection letter contains the statement that “a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name”. This is legally wrong.

I, as Hirer, had already received a Notice to Hirer (NtH) and exercised my internal right of appeal against that notice. Liability in a hire-vehicle case can only pass to a Hirer if the operator strictly complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), paragraphs 13 and 14, by serving an NtH within the statutory time limit together with copies of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), the hire agreement, and the Hirer’s statement of liability.

Those mandatory documents were not supplied with the original NtH and cannot be retrospectively added after an appeal rejection. Any “new notice” sent now is either a duplicate with no legal effect or an out-of-time attempt to repair fatal PoFA defects.

In either case, liability has not, and cannot, lawfully be “transferred into my name”, and the operator’s contrary assertion is a clear misrepresentation of the legal position and an abuse of process. It will be interesting to see how a supposedly legally trained IAS assessor will deal with this point.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the NtH complies with PoFA, if the operator is attempting to rely on Hirer liability. In a hire-vehicle context this includes full compliance with paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, including the mandatory enclosures with the NtH. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording, documents, or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders hirer liability unenforceable.

5. Strict proof that the NtH was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that Hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

When you say they will issue a claim, does this mean CPM will try to take me to court but it is unlikely I will have to actually attend court? I ask as I really can't afford a lawyer.

Basically, yes. Even if you were one of the unlucky few who did have to go to a hearing, you can attend as a litigant in person, there is no need to engage a lawyer (and in small claims cases, the cost of hiring a lawyer is generally higher than the amount at stake, making it not worth doing).