Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. From the evidence provided in the operator’s case file, it is clear that the registered keeper of the vehicle is ARVAL UK LTD, which provided the operator with the name of the person which had hired or leased the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. This company/person is xxxxx to which the operator then issued a Notice to Hirer. The appellant has confirmed in their appeal to the operator that the person xxxxx, is the hirer of the vehicle. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, paragraph 4 (1) states “the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. Section 13 (2) goes on to state that “the creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given – (a) 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. (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.” As such, Section 14(2)(a) requires the documents referred to above to be sent together with the Notice to Hirer. The operator has failed to provide a copy of these documents in its evidence to POPLA. As a result, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012. I therefore conclude that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.