Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have a leased vehicle from my company and have received the letter below -  I assume this is why it says 'Notice to Hirer'?.
 
This is the first letter I have received, I am not aware of any letters sent to the leasing company.
 
I was not the driver of the car and there is no photographic evidence attached, either to the letter, nor on the very poor website they reference in their letter.
 
They say the parking charge amount is for 15th December 2023 and the letter is dated 17th January 2024, I received it on the 21st January 2024.
 
I attach a copy of the letter.
Please can anyone advise what to do in this situation?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

If the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is in your name as a postal Notice to Hirer (NtH), that indicates that the hire company have transferred liability to you as the Hirer. Did the NtH contain copies of the following documents?


Please understand that MET have no idea of the drivers identity unless you, the Hirer tell them. There is no legal obligation of the Hirer to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Only the driver can be liable and MET do not know the drivers identity and they are not allowed to infer or assume that the Hirer must also be the driver.

Besides the fact that the location is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA, you have a "Golden Ticket" as long as the drivers identity is not disclosed. The only person that could disclose the drivers identity is the Hirer, whether they do so inadvertently or otherwise. No using language like "I did this or that". Always refer to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that".

Assuming that MET did not provide copies of the documents mentioned above (they never usually do), then you can appeal, only as the Hirer, with the following:

Easy one to defeat... 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:

Quote

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 Hirer 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. MET 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. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Additional question, do the leasing company disclose who else is listed on the drivers list for the car aside from the keeper? If so can MET request that and pursue the additional drivers listed?

Just to dispel the urban myth that a company can simply send bailiffs to knock on your door... In short: utter "male bovine testicles"!

No bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600 unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement is transferred to the High Court.

1. County Court Judgment (CCJ):


2. Threshold for High Court Enforcement:


3. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Creditors:


4. Private Parking Charges and Bailiffs:


So, no bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600 unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement is transferred to the High Court.

I'm not sure which forums you are referring to, and can't comment on the logic behind their approach, but this forum, its predecessor 'PePiPoo', and the MoneySavingExpert forum generally advise against ignoring charges issued in England and Wales, and have done since 2012.

In my view, the main issue with waiting for a Letter of Claim is that you only give yourself one/two bites of the cherry to get the charge cancelled, with the hassle of going through the motions of a court claim. By engaging at the start, you give yourself far more opportunities:

• You can engage directly with the landowner, who is more likely to be willing/able to help before the matter has escalated as far as legal action
• Your initial appeal gives you an opportunity to set out your position, and mark yourself as someone who is well-informed and up for a fight. In some cases, this might discourage the parking company from pursuing you, as they might think you're more effort than they're prepared to put in.
• If they're a BPA operator, if your appeal is rejected you can appeal to POPLA, who may find in your favour

Aside from the above, generally speaking, I take the view that if you have an argument/defence as to why you don't owe the charge, it is sensible and reasonable to communicate this. Whether the parking company respond to this reasonably is another matter.

Not appealing is unlikely to have any particularly detrimental effect on your case if it gets to court.

I did wonder if it was them. It's a good forum that provides decent consumer advice, but I've never personally agreed with their approach to private parking charges, for the reasons above. I just don't buy into their theory that using the appeals process to explain why their charge is not legitimate somehow legitimises their process/business model.

It's certainly not the case that POPLA never accept appeals, the success rate isn't all that bad, certainly high enough to be worth the effort (and at any rate, it costs the parking company money to participate). I had one accepted last month for a start 

I have sent the letter of appeal, I have found the attached pictures on the website. Just an entry to the car park and exit - is this now a paid car park as I'm unsure what the charge is actually for?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

It doesn't show the car parked up anywhere (either outside Starbucks or MacDonald's) , just at the entry and exit points, so if its not a paid car park, are you not permitted not enter it and then exit even? So if someone went in, drove through, didn't park anywhere they are still liable for fine? Sounds absolutely mental if that is the case.