Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Looking for some advice regarding several PCNs recently received from UKPA / HOZAH.

There are around 5 tickets in question relating to 2 vehicles — one is a company vehicle and the other is the driver’s personal vehicle.

To be clear from the outset, this is not a case of somebody intentionally avoiding payment or committing fraud. The driver has used this location regularly for a long time for genuine business purposes, including deliveries, collections and dropping off goods to businesses within the shopping centre area. This is not simply a standard “customer car park” being abused for free parking.

The car park has historically allowed a free parking period (roughly up to an hour), and where stays exceeded that period, the driver has regularly paid at the exit terminal before leaving. There has never previously been an issue and payment has been made many times in the past.

However, more recently, since UKPA/HOZAH took over management of the site, the exit barrier system appears to have become unreliable. On numerous occasions the barriers have:

- already been open,
- lifted automatically without payment,
- or appeared faulty/broken.

This has happened repeatedly over a period of time and has become a noticeable issue at the site.

Because the barriers were regularly opening automatically, the genuine impression formed was that either:

- the barriers were malfunctioning,
- the system was not operating correctly,
- or no further payment action was required before exit.

On the occasions now resulting in the PCNs, the vehicles exited normally because the barriers opened automatically without any warning, refusal of exit, or indication that payment remained outstanding.

The driver appreciates that parking operators may still say payment should have been made, and the driver is willing to pay the legitimate parking tariff for the actual stay durations. However, demanding around £100 per ticket in these circumstances feels excessive and disproportionate, especially where:

- the barriers were allowing vehicles to exit freely,
- there was no attempt to evade payment,
- and the actual parking charges would have been significantly lower.

The driver has also attempted to resolve matters by accessing the online payment portal, but experienced issues with the website/payment process and redirects. During this time, the reduced amounts increased to the full PCN amounts.

The main questions are:

- Does the repeated barrier issue help the driver’s position at all?
- Would this be considered misleading or inadequate enforcement?
- Is there a reasonable argument to offer payment of the actual parking tariffs only?
- What is realistically the best route to resolve this without matters escalating unnecessarily?

Any advice would be appreciated.

The driver entered into a contract by parking, under the terms as displayed on the signs.
The contract will probably be that the driver agrees to pay £100 if no parking tariff is paid.
This is pretty normal.
The parking company probably does not get any money from the parking tariff, but enforces on the basis that it gets to keep the money from people who don’t pay.
So there won’t be much interest in a retrospective offer to pay the parking tariff.

The driver entered into a contract by parking, under the terms as displayed on the signs.
The contract will probably be that the driver agrees to pay £100 if no parking tariff is paid.
This is pretty normal.
The parking company probably does not get any money from the parking tariff, but enforces on the basis that it gets to keep the money from people who don’t pay.
So there won’t be much interest in a retrospective offer to pay the parking tariff.

OK, thanks for getting back to me and your help.

This is a Notice to Hirer for a hired/leased vehicle after the parking company obtained details of the hirer from the registered keeper.

A Notice to Hirer can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer if the notice is acompanied by

Quote

(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.

Did this happen?

If not, then you can appeal each NtH as the hirer as long as the driver has not been identified, on the basis that the notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012,

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

An Act to provide for the destruction, retention, use and other regulation of certain evidential material; to impose consent and other requirements in relation to certain processing of biometric in...

legislation.gov.uk

. See paragraphs 13 & 14 in Schedule 4.

A sample apeal which may be suitable can be found on the forum, for example https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/premier-park-pcn-hire-vehicle-notice-to-hirer-received-but-no-hire-documents-inc/msg112671/#msg112671

Thanks very much - the driver will consider this approach and provide feedback - is it best to respond to PCN via appeal in the post ?
Is it likely this position will be rejected by the PCN issuer ? And what would be the steps beyond that ?

The other PCNS are for the drivers personal vehicle, is it Ok to post those PCN's also (will that help)

See the linked post for answers.

For notices to you as keeper, please post one of them if they’re all the same.

I just want to be sure this draft is OK to submit or should anything be adjusted ?
And how should the letter be signed off,  for example, in the same manner as it was addressed ?
or by the person responding ?
And is it worth mentioning any of issues highlighted before (issues with barriers) ?
sorry for tons of questions...

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice OMITTED
Vehicle Registration: OMITTED

I write as the hirer of the above vehicle in relation to the Parking Charge Notice issued by UK Parking Administration Ltd (UKPA/HOZAH).

The notice received states that liability for the parking charge has been transferred to the hirer. However, the documentation provided does not appear to comply with the requirements set out under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in relation to hire/lease vehicles.

In particular, Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 requires that, in order to transfer liability from the vehicle hire/lease company to the hirer, the operator must provide certain mandatory documents, including:

* A copy of the hire/lease agreement
* A copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer
* A copy of the original Notice to Keeper issued to the lease/hire company

The correspondence received did not include the above documents.

As the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 have not been satisfied, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.

For the avoidance of doubt, the hirer is under no obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

NAME OMITTED

------------------

At this stage all that is needed is the basic non PoFA compliance as you have wrote.

Anything else can be added at a later stage as they will most likely refuse the appeal.

It could be done online on their site, but watch out for any drop down boxes asking for the driver, submit as hirer.

Keep a shot of the appeal before submitting.

Stop going on about the driver.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read it from your Reply #3 that you’re the hirer and the Notice to Hirer was addressed to you, and this is the notice for which you are submitting your appeal.

So you are

the person the PCN is addressed to

.