DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: February 4, 2025, 1:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> after I signed some paperwork.
--- End Quote ---
What was this paperwork?
Were you given a copy?
#Post#: 56502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 4, 2025, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am
not liable.
Here!
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
#Post#: 56577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 4, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [quote]after I signed some paperwork.
--- End Quote ---
What was this paperwork?
Were you given a copy?
[/quote]
Hi John
I'll try to get a copy of it.
#Post#: 56589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 4, 2025, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> But where does it say under the parking regulations that I am
not liable.
>
> Here!
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
>
--- End Quote ---
Much obliged!
In 6(2)(b), the person (“P”) is Auxillis, correct? If so, it
does not make any reference to the driver (me) not being liable.
I don't know whether Auxillis had signed with Athlon a statement
of liability acknowledging liability in respect of any penalty
charge notice served in respect of any road traffic
contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the
hiring agreement. But I signed with Auxillis such statement.
Please bear with me. I am trying to understand the nitty-gritty
of this so that I am prepared to argue my case before the
adjudicator.
So all these people who hire cars from companies who are not
really a hire company, pay the PCNs because the hirer got them
to sign a statement of liability, and LAs accepted the hirer
Reps when technically they should not.
If I win the appeal on procedural impropriety, then the LA
cannot chase back Auxillis because they have already accepted
their Reps.
#Post#: 56615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 4, 2025, 11:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not procedural impropriety, it's 'I was not the owner'.
The 'owner' is a term defined in the Act and regs. It has
nothing to do with ownership in the normal sense of the word,
it's a legal construction.
As I understand it, you were not the owner at the material time
because you were not 'P' because there was no hiring agreement,
as defined, and you were not the hirer of the car.
#Post#: 58043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 13, 2025, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Attached is the Hire Agreement I signed with Auxillis.
I would very much appreciated if you could draft my final appeal
statement, three points:
CPZ sign, prolonge time taken and the vehicle ownership.
Thanks in anticipation.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 58113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 14, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trying to get to the bottom of this is proving very difficult.
When is your hearing? You might need to apply for postponement.
As I now understand matters:
Athlone are the registered keeper. Theirs is the NTO referred to
in the authority's summary (you questioned this date but you
were confusing it with the NTO to Auxilis).
Athlone and Auxilis have a standard agreement with the former
being the registered keeper and lease company, the
latter(Auxilis) being a hire company.
Now it gets murky, but I think the following is correct..
You have a car(nothing to do with this issue directly) which for
some reason was involved in an accident and your unknown
insurance company arranged for Auxilis to provide a vehicle to
you.
This was the vehicle involved in the contravention and it came
into your possession solely because your insurer paid Auxilis to
do so.
PCN - to you. Unsuccessful reps.
First NTO - to Athlone who made reps to 'transfer liability',
presumably 'we are a hire company and hirer(Auxilis) has signed
an agreement accepting liability etc.
Authority accept these reps and serve NTO no. 2 on Auxilis as
hirer.
They then make reps on grounds they are a hire company.
These are accepted.
You receive NTO no. 3
You make unsuccessful reps.
Your insurer pays the bill for the hire costs associated with
your possession of the car.
Is this correct??
#Post#: 58127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 14, 2025, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Trying to get to the bottom of this is proving very difficult.
>
> When is your hearing? You might need to apply for
postponement.
>
> As I now understand matters:
>
> Athlone are the registered keeper. Theirs is the NTO referred
to in the authority's summary (you questioned this date but you
were confusing it with the NTO to Auxilis).
>
> Athlone and Auxilis have a standard agreement with the former
being the registered keeper and lease company, the
latter(Auxilis) being a hire company.
>
> Now it gets murky, but I think the following is correct..
>
> You have a car(nothing to do with this issue directly) which
for some reason was involved in an accident and your unknown
insurance company arranged for Auxilis to provide a vehicle to
you.
>
> This was the vehicle involved in the contravention and it came
into your possession solely because your insurer paid Auxilis to
do so.
>
> PCN - to you. Unsuccessful reps.
> First NTO - to Athlone who made reps to 'transfer liability',
presumably 'we are a hire company and hirer(Auxilis) has signed
an agreement accepting liability etc.
>
> Authority accept these reps and serve NTO no. 2 on Auxilis as
hirer.
>
> They then make reps on grounds they are a hire company.
>
> These are accepted.
>
> You receive NTO no. 3
>
> You make unsuccessful reps.
>
> Your insurer pays the bill for the hire costs associated with
your possession of the car.
>
> Is this correct??
>
--- End Quote ---
Spot on! Absolutely correct.
I have called the tribunal, and the hearing has been postponed
to 24th Feb 25. But they tell me that I need to submit my final
appeal 5 days before the hearing.
#Post#: 58142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 14, 2025, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Then IMO the grounds of 'I am not the owner' apply.
Sir,
PCN *********
My grounds of appeal are as follows:
I was not the owner;
Contravention did not occur. ( if you want to, I rather got lost
with the arguments here)
As regards the first grounds, I hope it would be helpful if I
set out the various parties in these events.
Athlone - registered keeper of the vehicle and a leasing
company;
Auxilis - lessee of the vehicle on, as the council states, a
'long term lease' and who also operate as a vehicle hire
company;
******* - my insurance company who use Auxilis to provide
insured parties with substitute vehicles while they undertake
repairs;
Me - an insured party of **** and also the driver of the vehicle
VRM **** which I had in my possession having been provided with
this by Auxilis pursuant to a contract between them and *****.
Each of the above parties was served with a NTO issued by the
authority.
NTO 1 - issued on ***** to Athlone. As the case summary states,
they made representations to the effect that they were a hire
company. These were accepted by the authority who then issued a
NTO to Auxilis who were named as the 'hirer' pursuant to a 'hire
agreement'.
NTO 2 - issued to Auxilis on **** to which they made the
representations on the same grounds i.e. that they were a
vehicle hire company and that I had entered into a hire
agreement with them accepting liability for such matters as
penalty charges.
NTO 3 - issued on ***** to me on the basis that I was considered
the 'owner' for the purposes of the Traffic Management Act and
regulations.
I submit that I cannot be considered the 'owner' for these
purposes for the following reasons and that no liability for the
penalty falls to me.
It is clear that Athlone are not a vehicle hire company and
there is no hire agreement between them and Auxilis. In support,
I would respectfully refer you the Chief Adjudicator's Annual
Report to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators 2022-2023,
page 13 which dealt specifically with the issue of 'Transfer of
Liability'.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf
In the report he made clear (and referred to legal authorities
in support of his view) that it was not open to an authority to
accept representations on the grounds of 'd)the recipient is a
vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a hiring agreement,'
in case where leases for longer than 6 months apply. Instead, he
stated that a registered keeper could rebut the presumption of
ownership based upon a lease being in effect which would achieve
the necessary degree of permanence regarding transfer of
responsibility for the vehicle.
However, the council in this case have not provided any evidence
that these were the grounds cited or their reasons for
acceptance, but I suggest that this can be reasonably inferred
from their summary. In these circumstances I submit that it was
not open to the council to pursue any party other than Athlone
as the registered keeper and presumed owner because no 'hiring
agreement' was in effect between them and their lessee, Auxilis.
In addition to the above, as regards Auxilis the only contract
which existed as regards the hire of the vehicle was between
them and ****, my insurer. As their Ts and Cs make clear, my
possession of the vehicle was subject to the 'Company's'
direction, not mine. I submit that while they use the term Hire
Agreement, this was for their convenience only and did not
satisfy the requirements under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act
and therefore the regulations.
In light of the above, I ask that my appeal be allowed.
You need to fill in gaps.
Some thoughts and wait for others.
#Post#: 58296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours - Code
01
DIR By: mitaab
Date: February 15, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very impressive! Many thanks.
Questions:
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> However, the council in this case have not provided any
evidence that these were the grounds cited or their reasons for
acceptance, but I suggest that this can be reasonably inferred
from their summary. In these circumstances I submit that it was
not open to the council to pursue any party other than Athlone
as the registered keeper and presumed owner because no 'hiring
agreement' was in effect between them and their lessee, Auxilis.
>
--- End Quote ---
1) How do you know that there was no 'hiring agreement' between
Athlon and Auxillis?
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> In addition to the above, as regards Auxilis the only contract
which existed as regards the hire of the vehicle was between
them and ****, my insurer. As their Ts and Cs make clear, my
possession of the vehicle was subject to the 'Company's'
direction, not mine. I submit that while they use the term Hire
Agreement, this was for their convenience only and did not
satisfy the requirements under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act
and therefore the regulations.
>
--- End Quote ---
2) Which requirement under the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act that
Auxillis did not satisfy?
3) Do I not include the reference to the parking regulation:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/6/made
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page