Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is a split off from the other thread - https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm/

The hirer of the vehicle was parked in Broadstairs Botany bay

Further up Opposite Door number 102 - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.386742,1.4363634,3a,75y,314.08h,71.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx6QT9JsthyMPw76zgQ7nkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D18.28150405020142%26panoid%3Dx6QT9JsthyMPw76zgQ7nkw%26yaw%3D314.0788668681936!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

No road markings just some signs which is scattered all around the road.


The hirer of the vehicle did not received a PCN not under their name but this was received under the lease company and no further communication received. What the lease company does is give the hirer an email to state that they (lease company) give full authorisation for the hirer to dispute the charge.

The clueless lease company, Tusker, has not complied with he instructions on the NtK in order to transfer liability away from them to the Hirer. So, even if the Hirer does nothing, CPMUK will hold Tusker liable and will pursue them.

The Hirer can try and appeal as the Hirer but CPMUK is not required to accept any appeal unless it is in the name of the person or company named on the NtK.

If Tusker end up paying then PCN because of their failure to transfer liability using the correct process as shown in the NtK and as per PoFA paragraph 13 and then try to charge the Hirer, they will have done so unlawfully.

That then becomes a different matter and not a parking one. CPMUK would be laughing all the way to the bank and are no longer involved in the matter. If Tusker realises their mistake after they are sued by the Hirer for the amount they incorrectly charged the Hirer and want their money back, they’d have to sue CPMUK. Good luck with that, but not our concern.

The Hirer, assuming it is not too late, which I fear it is, must either instruct Tusker to comply with the instructions in the NtK and do a PoFA complaint transfer of liability to absolve themselves of liability, or the Hirer must try and persuade CPMUK that they have authority to deal with the PCN, but they can only do that as the Keeper, which they are not. The Hirer has to persuade CPMUK to issue a valid NtH, which is very doubtful they would agree to.

You never know though. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished ex-clampers and they may just send one, not being able to comply with PoFA paragraph 14 but realising anyway as they never comply with under normal procedures.

Absolutely moronic by the lease company Tusker. Completely breaches BVRLA guidelines and probably breaches the lease agreement. We need to see the exact terms in the lease agreement that refer to parking charges.

On the back of the NtK they received it specifically says:

Vehicle Hirers

If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was on hire at the time of the parking incident please let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

So, Tusker are lying when they state in their letter that "...the private parking operator will not allow them to transfer liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the charge notice."

CPM have correctly advised exactly what Tusker need to do to transfer liability away from them to the Hirer. PoFA paragraph 13 explains how once this has been complied with, there is no more liability on Tusker, irrespective if the Hirer disputes of fails to engage with CPM.

For the Hirers education (and obviously the morons at Tusker), here is the relevant section of Paragraph 13:

13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—

(a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and

(b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).

(2)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.

(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c) must—

(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the hirer;

(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;

So, now that you know you are dealing with morons and intellectually malnourished liars, you need to understand the situation. The PCN has been paid and CPM are in hysterics on their way to the bank.

Tusker has stupidly assumed that the PCN was the same as a "Penalty" Notice which is issued under statutory law, not civil law. CPM are not an authority of any kind that can issue "penalties" of "fines" which are issued by councils and the police. No "offence" was committed. A PCN is simply a speculative invoice issued by an unregulated private parking company. Once the PCN is paid, liability has been accepted and there is no appeals process that can be used to try and get that money back. It's gone.

Without having seen the actual terms of the hire (lease) agreement regarding parking charges, Tusker will still have breached the CRA 2015. The only way to recover the money Tusker have unlawfully charged the hirer will be to get them to admit their mistake and pay the hirer back and if they still want to recover the money they threw away at CPM will be for them to sue CPM (good lick with that). If Tusker refuse or try and evade liability for their stupid mistake, you would have to sue them in the county court where you would have an incredibly solid case.

The hirer could dispute any funds taken by Tusker with their bank if it was then by direct debit or with their credit card company if it was taken by that method. The Keeper is in dispute with Tusker.

Had the utter feckwits at Tusker simply transferred liability as advised, CPM would have been required to issue an NtH to the hirer ad they would have screwed up because these scammers always omit to include copies of the documents that were provided by the hire company with the transfer of liability, and the hirer would have zero liability as long as they don't identify the driver.

I shudder at the thought of how many hirers (or lessees) end up forfeiting their hard earned money because of the stupidity of the hire/lease companies ignorance and have absolutely no idea how to properly challenge it.

It's not clear from that letter whether the hire firm have actually paid anything yet. If they haven't, the hirer's priority for now is to get them to actually nominate the hirer.

True. I was going on the OPs statement that "If i`m not mistaken the PCN is paid already and if my friend wins the appeal they refund the credit." A scenario that is not uncommon.

If the PCN hasn't been paid by Tusker an urgent response to that mendacious letter claiming that Tusker are unable to transfer liability needs to be made and they should be instructed to follow CPMs and PoFA requirements to effect immediate transfer of liability and explaining that that is the only way that the hirer can comply with the PCN.

Tusker have until Monday 21st October to transfer liability correctly. After that, CPM will not give a rats bottom and will simply pursue Tusker.

Suggest sending the following as an URGENT letter (preferably as a PDF attachment by email) to Tusker:

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

Fleet Admin Team
Tuskerdirect Limited
Building 4, Hatters Lane
Croxley Green Business Park
Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Reference [PCN Reference Number] for Vehicle Registration [Vehicle Registration Number]

I am writing regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and Tusker's correspondence dated 25th September 2024, in which you claimed that "the private parking operator will not allow you to transfer liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the charge notice." This statement is patently false and misrepresents the process clearly set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The Notice to Keeper issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd (CPM) clearly includes a very bold heading at the top of the reverse side: "Vehicle Hirers." This section explicitly outlines the procedure for transferring liability under Schedule 4, paragraph 13 of POFA, allowing the registered keeper to transfer liability by providing the hirer's details, the hire agreement, and a signed statement of liability. How could Tusker miss such a prominent instruction and then claim to me, in no uncertain terms, that it is not possible to transfer liability? This is mendacious and it demonstrates a disregard for the proper handling of this matter.

If Tusker does not follow the correct procedure to transfer liability by the deadline of 21st October 2024, then Tusker will remain liable for the PCN. Should Tusker choose to pay the charge notice instead of transferring liability correctly, this will amount to an admission of liability as the Registered Keeper. Any attempt to pass this charge on to me, the hirer, would be unlawful and would breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), as it would deprive me of my statutory right to appeal the PCN as the correct party. Under PoFA, the driver, the keeper and the hirer are separate legal entities.

Your handling of this matter has been wholly inadequate, and the misinformation provided undermines my ability to contest the PCN fairly. The CRA prohibits the imposition of unfair practices that deny consumers their legal rights, and Tusker’s conduct in this situation certainly falls into that category.

If the recipient of this letter is unable to grasp the seriousness and urgent nature of this issue, I strongly recommend forwarding it to Tusker's legal advisors for review, as any consequences arising from a failure to comply with the correct legal procedures will rest entirely with Tusker. I expect a written confirmation that the transfer of liability has been completed in line with POFA before 21st October 2024.

Failure to comply may result in further legal action and a formal complaint to regulatory authorities, as I will not hesitate to protect my rights under the law.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Seems like unlawful deduction from wages as well, oh dear.

I’ve no idea how your friends salary sacrifice is set up with Tusker and is beyond the scope of advice we give here. However, as you have shown in your post, it even says in their website:

Quote

If your vehicle is issued with a private land fine, where possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to you for settlement.

Whilst the author of that bit calls it a “private land fine”, it clearly states that “they will always request a transfer of liability”. So, it is pretty obvious that whoever issued the letter and authorisation, was not being truthful.

Make sure your friend sends that letter urgently to Tusker so that liability is transferred correctly and before the deadline so that he can be issued an NtH and then appeal it as the hirer and most likely not be liable due the inevitable screw up by  CPM.

Tusker was called earlier and they said that they have not paid the fine but CPM refused the transfer of liability.
Tusker was informed that if CPM have refused the transfer of liability then prove it by sending the refusal.

We suspect there`s some bureaucracy laziness going on here.

If this was done by phone, follow up in writing, so that you have evidence.

Yes he asked them to confirm in writing that they have contacted CPM but CPM refused to transfer liability  - below is the response received.

"As discussed, we need to obtain proof from our fines processing team to confirm the authority refused to transfer over liability to you.

We will email you to let you know once we have heard back.
"

There doesn't seem to be a tear off form on the PCN (other than for payment), but there is a link to a website that purports to be for transferring liability.