-
PCN liability in driving lesson
Posted by
gdric1
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:13
-
Hi all,
I have a question about who is liable for a parking charge notice issued during a driving lesson.
I am a licence holder and a new driver. I have not driven for several years from when I first obtained my licence. I took up some refresher lessons a couple months ago with a large motoring school. As part of these lessons the instructor directed me to a car park of his choice where we practised bay parking for the better part of an hour on multiple occasions. I did not see any parking notices, although I would expect to have missed it because I was following my instructor's direction and because I am inexperienced. My instructor made no comment about any signs or limits to period of stay and repeatedly brought me to this car park.
It is now a few months after my last lesson with my instructor and as of the last few days out of the blue I have received aggressive communication from him telling me for the first time that his car has been issued several PCNs back in April and since I was the driver of his car at the time that I am liable to pay them. He has provided evidence that these PCNs were issued during our lessons and I don't doubt that. Up until just now, I had received no communication about this matter, not from the instructor, or from the ticket issuer or from the motoring school.
I have read the contract for the private ticket issuer. It states that the driver is liable and that payment of the fee is admission of liability. There is no explicit definition of who the driver here is, it's not clear that it must be the person behind the wheel in a car with dual controls. I don't consider myself the driver when I am being told where to go and what to do and where I am not disobeying any instruction given, the instructor is in control of the vehicle. Secondly, the instructor tells me that his lease company has paid the private ticket issuer and that he has paid the lease company.
My view of this is that the instructor has admitted liability by choosing to pay the invoice his lease company has issued him with and that he should take this up with them. My view is also that he should have appealed this in the appropriate time window and notified me months ago if he believed he was not at fault or that I was at fault. So I think the instructor is imagining that there is a personal debt here and trying to come after me for it.
I have asked some people I know including another instructor and the advice is that he's a chancer and in the worst case he can try and fail to take me to small claims court on this. I think this advice is solid. To an extent I don't know why I'm writing this, I suppose the communication from my instructor simply reads as too shameless for a driving instructor unless he honestly believes he is in the right. He hasn't said anything on that topic yet, just threatened me with talk of debt collectors.
Thank you for any replies.
-
-
#1 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:26
-
As a starting point, in general, with private parking charges, it is the driver who is liable - the driver is the person who, through their conduct, entered any contract offered by the signage at the site. There are mechanisms through which parking companies can recover unpaid parking charges from the hirer or registered keeper of a vehicle, if they do not know who was driving, but the starting point is always the driver. In a case of a driver under instruction, the person behind the wheel is still the driver. (That said, as an aside, I would expect a competent driving instructor to be aware of the requirement to note any terms and conditions when entering private land, and avoid taking a student somewhere where they may become liable for a charge - and if they subsequently did, I'd suggest the decent thing to do would be for the instructor to pay. This is my opinion rather than a legal position, though.)
However, in this case, your instructor has chosen to pay the parking charge, thereby effectively accepting that he owes the money. If he wanted to hold you liable for the charge, he could have provided the parking company with your name and address, as the notice he received will have made clear to him. This would have removed his liability entirely, but instead he made the choice to pay. The fact he's threatening you with 'debt collectors' suggests he may be chancing his arm. He'd need to sue you in the County Court if he wanted to recover the money, and you would seem to have the makings of a decent defence... He voluntarily paid an invoice issued to him by another company, if he believed you were liable, he could have told them that.
Has he sent you copies of the parking charge notices?
-
-
-
You hold a full driving licence.
You were undertaking refresher training at your own choice in another person's car.
They are not the registered keeper, instead the vehicle is leased.
You are the driver and wholly responsible for your actions.
Having dispensed with this, where do you stand contractually as in you and the instructor?
It seems that they selected private controlled land to conduct their lessons.
Tango sierra for them.
This has nothing to do with private parking contracts and all the other paraphernalia which comes in its wake. To continue the seafaring analogy, that ship sailed when the lease company paid the parking charge. If the instructor wants to sue you under their contract with you, then that's up to them. IMO, they would stand no chance. They owe a professional duty of care to you bearing in mind your respective status: them instruct(as in know their crankshaft from their big end), you follow instructions.
-
-
#3 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:35
-
To continue the seafaring analogy, that ship sailed when the lease company paid the parking charge.
A small clarifying point, which doesn't detract from your other points: it seems from the OP that the instructor is the one who paid, not the hire company.
-
-
#4 Reply
Posted by
gdric1
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:39
-
Thank you DWMB2 and H C Andersen, very clear and concise and helpful.
I am surprised that I am liable legally, though not morally. I know this seems like pedantry, how can we know if 'driver' isn't defined legally. I think the driver is the operator or person in charge of the vehicle and it's arguable that it isn't me in this context.
Also, yes, he has sent me the notices and they align with the timings of some of my lessons. I looked up the place on a map and it does look like somewhere we went to do parking.
-
-
#5 Reply
Posted by
gdric1
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:42
-
To continue the seafaring analogy, that ship sailed when the lease company paid the parking charge.
A small clarifying point, which doesn't detract from your other points: it seems from the OP that the instructor is the one who paid, not the hire company.
DWMB2, he has sent me an invoice of the lease company paying the fine and then later a text message that says "I have paid the PCN". Maybe there is some openness for interpretation. I read it as he has paid the invoice to the lease company who have paid the issuer. I have communicated with him after that with that interpretation and he has not disputed it yet.
-
-
#6 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:45
-
A useful clarification. If the lease company has paid it, that's a dispute between him and his lease company, and nothing to do with you.
-
-
-
We're on the same page now.
OP,
The lease company paid a parking charge issued by the parking operator on the private land because of a breach of contract by you, the driver which led to them being held liable as registered keeper. They charged the lessee, the instructor.
The instructor paid the lease company under their lease(presumably);
The instructor wants to charge you under...their contract with you. They can sue you if they wish, but as I pointed out their claim would be predicated on them not exercising due care expected of person in their capacity and they'd be laughed out of court, if they were lucky.
Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them;
Little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum!
-
-
#8 Reply
Posted by
gdric1
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:58
-
Ok, thank you both. I think my communication with him is along the right lines then, notwithstanding that I may be liable legally if he has or had not paid, or if the lease company has not paid the issuer on the lessee's behalf.
If I try to put myself in his shoes, setting aside feelings I would have about whether I should know better as in my capacity as a teacher, I do think I would be more mad at the lease company for paying the PCNs immediately and not giving me the opportunity to appeal, instead of going after a student. It sounds a bit like that's what has happened. I didn't have any bad relationship with him mind you, the lessons were uneventful. Why he messages me months later is also confusing since the PCN letters are from April, what happened in that time.
But anyway, I have learned something new and am happy to be educated. I will be extra careful going onto any private land in future in my capacity as a licence holder. Thank you both, and for the many analogies H C Andersen!
-
-
#9 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 27 Jun, 2024 22:06
-
I do think I would be more mad at the lease company for paying the PCNs immediately and not giving me the opportunity to appeal, instead of going after a student.
As would I, and we see quite a few such cases making there way onto here.
I'm speculating now, but he may have weighed up his options and decided it'd be easier to try and pressure you into paying than to pursue a legal dispute with his hire company. Or, in the intervening time, he's tried to get the money back from the lease company and failed.
-
-
#10 Reply
Posted by
b789
on 27 Jun, 2024 23:07
-
Whether the "student" is a provisional or full licence holder, it is always the "driver" that is liable for a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company (PPC). The PPC have no idea who the driver is.
The PPC send an NtK to the lease company. The lease company should (but some are really ignorant) transfer liability for the PCN to the lessee. This is where it would have been simple to get this cancelled. The PPC, once they receive the notice of transfer of liability from the keeper to the lease (Hirer), they are supposed to issue a new Notice to Hirer (NtH) together with copies of some documents from the lease company. In 99.999% (I've never seen a single one in over 3 years of dealing with these issues) of cases, they fail to include the copiers of the required documents as stipulated in PoFA thus rendering the NtH non compliant and therefore unable to transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known Hirer.
The burden of prof lies with the PPC to prove that the known keeper was also the unknown driver. They are not allowed to assume or infer that it was. The only way they would know who was driving is if the known Hirer told the PPC, inadvertently or otherwise. So, if they can't hold the known keeper liable and the keeper has not identified the driver, the PPC is in a Catch 22 situation with no options.
As already explained earlier, the lease company decided, wrongly, to pay the invoice thereby admitting liability for it, irrespective of who was driving, known or unknown. As far as the PPC is concerned, that is the end of the matter and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
If the lease company then decide to charge the lease (Hirer) and the Hirer pays the lease company, then that is a dispute between them. You, the driver have no say or liability in the matter.
Unless the Hirer had an agreement that you, as a client "student" of their are liable for any invoices from unregulated private parking companies that are received by the Hirer with whom you have the agreement, there's little they can do about it. They can huff and puff and threaten to sue you in the small claims track of the county court but they would have almost zero chance of being successful.
The Hirer, your instructor, should have known better than to teach you on private land, at least not before seeking out any terms and conditions for using the land beforehand. You should simply get on with your life and tough luck to the instructor. A useful lesson for you in your future driving experience and forearmed now with the knowledge to check the Ts & Cs of any private land you use, whether to park on or learn on.
-
-
#11 Reply
Posted by
gdric1
on 27 Jun, 2024 23:41
-
I know the main question has been answered by all three of you, so this is veering off the topic. I am beginning to agree with what all of you are saying about liability normally being with the driver. Ok, let's say I also agree that the driver is usually the person behind the wheel.
Within the context of a lesson, obviously a student can do all manner of stupid things..... speed, verge onto a bus lane, stop in a yellow box, or in a red zone... the list is endless. I know it is possible that the driving instructor has no control to prevent this in a timely manner or if at all even if they have their own controls. So the instructor is not always in control of the car, but equally at some times he has all the control. In my case the instructor told me to go there and at any point he could have told me to leave or stop and I would have followed his instruction. I now agree that this doesn't absolve me of my own responsibility to notice that I am going onto private land, but it is fully in his capacity to prevent it and he has all the time in the world to do so. I would argue that we were both the drivers in this context then!
-
-
#12 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 27 Jun, 2024 23:53
-
I would argue that we were both the drivers in this context then!
It's an argument that is unlikely to gain much traction. You are the one behind the wheel, the instructor is providing guidance, but you are the one operating the vehicle. You cannot simply say that because the instructor was telling you what to do, that he was the one driving.
You are, after all, a human being possessing free will, and might reasonably be expected to refuse to follow an unreasonable instruction - if, for example, you were driving at the speed limit, and your instructor told you to floor it, it wouldn't be your instructor who was guilty of speeding.
-
-
#13 Reply
Posted by
b789
on 27 Jun, 2024 23:59
-
I don't understand wha you are worrying about. You would have been the liable party in a breach of contract dispute with the PPC. This is simply a matter of contract law (civil). Nothing to do with criminal law.
However, there is no outstanding debt as far as the PPC is concerned so the matter is closed. As for your instructor, unless he has a valid contract with you as his client that specifically covers your liability for private invoices from a third party, then he should take the matter up with his lease company or if he's feeling lucky, try and sue you in the county court.
As far as you are concerned, the matter is closed.
-
-
#14 Reply
Posted by
gdric1
on 28 Jun, 2024 00:02
-
I would argue that we were both the drivers in this context then!
It's an argument that is unlikely to gain much traction. You are the one behind the wheel, the instructor is providing guidance, but you are the one operating the vehicle. You cannot simply say that because the instructor was telling you what to do, that he was the one driving.
You are, after all, a human being possessing free will, and might reasonably be expected to refuse to follow an unreasonable instruction - if, for example, you were driving at the speed limit, and your instructor told you to floor it, it wouldn't be your instructor who was guilty of speeding.
To that I would he has his pedals beneath his feet, he can put his foot on the brake!
I am not saying that he is the one driving anymore, I have learned, but it seems not all the way! In the context of this particular scenario it feels to me like both are driving and either one can put a stop to this. How it seems or feels to me and how it is legally may be different, maybe it's getting back to the morality of it. I don't know, but I think it's instructive
for me to point this out.
I wouldn't follow an instruction I knew to be incorrect or illegal, but if I was labouring under such a defect of reason that I couldn't tell, then I would follow it because he's supposed to be the one who knows more than me, that's why I'm paying him to teach me and set a good example.
Having said all of that, I appreciate the angle you are coming at it from.
-
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1