DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 50526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: December 19, 2024, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have not re-offered the discount, so it is now a total
no-brainer to now register an appeal at London Tribunals.
As far as I can see, your main appeal point is that there was no
CPZ sign giving the yellow line restrictions at any point on
your journey to the parking location. Others have pointed out
that this council have form in not having all the signs in
place. You then have the secondary point of excessive delay in
serving the Notice to Owner, (7 months). This is not as strong
as one would want, because the first NtO would have been sent to
the leasing company, so the 6 month period for serving of your
NtO dates from the cancellation of the first NtO. So they issued
it under 6 months but still a very extended interval. They still
need to provide a reason for such delay to the adjudicator in
issuing it if they have had regard to the Statutory Guidance.
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
#Post#: 50548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 20, 2024, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I have received an email from the rent company agreeing
to me challenging the PCN,.....
What??
On this point this has nothing to do with the hire company so I
wonder what the email states. Pl post.
IMO, you won't fail at adjudication, in fact their NoR is one of
the most bland responses I've read for some time, totally devoid
of reasoning and on this point alone you'd probably succeed.
As things stand:
They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you
to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence
that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the
effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was
hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued
within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a
NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.
And then whether any penalty could be demanded for want of the
restriction being signed in accordance with their obligations.
#Post#: 51071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: December 26, 2024, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your feedback.
For your info:
PCN Date of Issue: 16/02/24
My Informal Challenge: 18/03/24
NoR of Informal Challenge: 09/05/24
NtO to Hire Company: 29/07/24
Reps of Hire Company to LA: 01/08/24
NtO to Myself: 19/09/24
My Reps: 17/10/24
NoR of my Reps: 04/12/24
On the second page of the NoR of my Reps, and in the bottom
paragraph, the LA made a false claim saying that the first NtO
was sent to registered keeper (the vehicle hire company) on
10/06/24. But this is incorrect. The date of issue of the NtO is
29/07/24. Please see document below confirming this and also
showing date on which the hire company made their Reps
(01/08/24).
Can I use this discrepancy to my advantage when I make my
appeal, and is it contravening any statutory guidance?
NtO to hire company:
HTML https://ibb.co/7nJn0mw
Reps of hire company
HTML https://ibb.co/zrGz82z
#Post#: 51072--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: December 26, 2024, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> They have not provided any evidence that they may consider you
to be the 'owner' of the vehicle. This requires simple evidence
that they issued a NTO to *** on ** and received reps to the
effect that *** is a vehicle hire company and the vehicle was
hired to you etc.. and that a Notice of Acceptance was issued
within the 56-day period allowed following which they issued a
NTO to you within the 28-day period allowed.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I think LA made a reference to this matter in the NoR, second
page - bottom paragraph. I guess they will include any evidence
relating to this in their Evidence Pack at the Appeal stage.
Speaking of which, is it accepted that the LA might include new
evidence in their Evidence Pack that they have not highlighted
before?
By the way, I have not come across the "Notice of Acceptance"
before. What purpose does it serve and when is issued?
Also, shall I accept the Evidence Pack by email, as per the LA
request in their NoR?
I am submitting my Appeal shortly. What are the major points
that I should base my appeal on.
Thank you in anticipation.
#Post#: 56359--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 3, 2025, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I have received the evidence pack from the LA for the appeal.
The following is their Summary argument and photos that they
have not previously provided.
Summary_pg1:
HTML https://ibb.co/7dYQhfVd
Summary_pg2:
HTML https://ibb.co/ks4vkmdB
summary_pg3:
HTML https://ibb.co/ZzckZ6P1
image_1:
HTML https://ibb.co/4gwbPg7s
image_2:
HTML https://ibb.co/s9XD1nv3
image_3:
HTML https://ibb.co/2YYD8RwN
image_4:
HTML https://ibb.co/jZMQY2xZ
I have to submit my final appeal and your advice and help is
appreciated.
#Post#: 56409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 3, 2025, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Before going through this evidence pl confirm the nature of your
hire agreement, it's important.
The grounds of 'we are a vehicle hire company' are invalid if
the hire is for more than 6 months e.g. a lease etc. In this
case their grounds are 'not the owner' because the lease
provides sufficient permanence to your keepership as to make
you, not them, 'keeper' in law. Sending a NTO to the registered
keeper does NOT of itself mean they are the keeper for the
purposes of enforcement because this is simply a presumption
which in their case may be rebutted by production of a lease.
Whereas, for hire agreements (which are defined in law as being
for a period of less than 6 months) the grounds of 'we are a
vehicle hire company' apply.
So, hire(less than 6 months) or lease?
Edit- can't understand their evidence summary, they suggest that
they received 2 sets of reps from Athlon!
In any event, IMO there has been a procedural impropriety on the
part of the authority. The NTO sent to you was invalid because
the authority did not have the legal power to consider you as
hirer and therefore liable pursuant to representations made by
the registered keeper. This follows because the nature of your
possession was subject to a long-term lease and therefore while
the registered keeper could have argued that you were the
'owner' by virtue of you being considered the keeper due to the
permanence of your possession, they could not seek to transfer
liability based upon the vehicle being hired because no 'hiring
agreement' exists.
I refer to the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2022-2023 page
13.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf
“owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the
vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under
the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed
(unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name
the vehicle is registered;
#Post#: 56451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 3, 2025, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Before going through this evidence pl confirm the nature of
your hire agreement, it's important.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for coming back to me.
The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result
of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
#Post#: 56457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 3, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a result
of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
Pl explain. This muddies the water even more.
A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form. It
has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may also
be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession of
the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable under
parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract exists
between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the latter.
Will you pl explain who is who in this saga.
#Post#: 56463--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 3, 2025, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The hire car was coordinated by the isurance company as a
result of a car accident which rendered my car non-driveable.
>
> Pl explain. This muddies the water even more.
>
> A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form.
It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may
also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession
of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable
under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract
exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the
latter.
>
> Will you pl explain who is who in this saga.
>
--- End Quote ---
I will try. After the car accident my car insurance instructed
(authorised) the hire company (Auxillis) to provide me with a
replacement car while the insurance claim is dealt with. This is
part of my insurance policy in case my car was not road worthy
as a result of an accident. Auxillis then contacted me and
arranged for the hire car after I signed some paperwork. I was
not aware of or involved with Athlon (apparently the original
keeper) at all.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need more clarification.
#Post#: 56481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 3, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
>
> A hiring agreement is a legal document of a prescribed form.
It has two principals: a hire company and a hirer. There may
also be third parties e.g. a driver etc. who is given possession
of the car by the hirer. This does NOT make the driver liable
under parking regs. It makes the hirer liable and if a contract
exists between the hirer and the driver the former may sue the
latter.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Let me see if I understand this correctly. According to what you
say, it means that Athlon is the hire company, Auxillis is the
hirer and I am the driver. How intriguing!
But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am
not liable.
So, the LA made an error by accepting the Auxillis Reps, passing
the parking liability onto me?
If that is the case, please what is the best way to present this
to the adjudicator, and would the adjudicator be aware of this
regulation?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page