DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36043--------------------------------------------------
PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: mdar50743
Date: September 7, 2024, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
Hope if anyone can help, advise or have had any experience
dealing with with MET Parking Services.
I hired a car and my local McDonald’s had a EV Charging
facility. I've been going there for about
few weeks and all of a sudden been getting a 7 fines so far and
probably more for charging my EV car
there for overstaying.
Could any please help and advise what can I do to appeal these
fines as they are getting really unbearable.
Thank you.
HTML https://ibb.co/RHHTcgS
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/RHHTcgS[/img]
#Post#: 36052--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: b789
Date: September 7, 2024, 11:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome. As an EV owner for almost 5 years, I have some
understanding of the issues surrounding rapid charging,
especially when using Instavolt. Not the cheapest and especially
if it comes with an added invoice of £100 per visit, ans in this
case, although I would question why the need to rapid charge for
over an hour each time.
I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK),
Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now,
assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important
that we get these fact correct.
Have you been in any contact with the operator, MET Parking, and
if so, have you revealed the identity of the Driver? MET will
only know the identity of the Driver of you, the Hirer, has told
them. Hopefully, you haven’t done so. Neither Hertz nor MET know
the identity of the driver and, as you can read on the NtK, it
the Driver who is liable for the alleged debt.
The Driver, the Keeper and the Hirer are all separate legal
entities. Whilst the Keeper/Hirer may also be the Driver, that
is only known by the Keeper/Hirer. In the case of a hired
vehicle, the Hire company does not know who the Driver is. There
is no legal requirement for the Hirer to identify the Driver to
an unregulated private parking company.
You have already, mistakenly, called these “fines”. Only an
“authority” such as a council or the police can issue “fines” or
“penalties” and only if an “offence” has been committed. MET are
a private company and definitely not an “authority” of any kind.
What they have issued is a speculative invoice for an alleged
breach of contract by the Driver. Can you show a single mention
of the words “fine”, “penalty” or “offence” on any of the
paperwork received?
MET are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>to be able to transfer liability for the charge (invoice) from
the Driver, if they are unknown, to the Keeper or Hirer. That
can only happen if all the requirements of PoFA have been fully
complied with. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
If the driver has been identified by the Hirer, then PoFA does
not apply and the Driver (now known to MET) remains liable and a
“golden ticket” opportunity has been wasted. Has the Driver been
identified?
Normally, a PCN for a Hire/Lease vehicle is considered a “golden
ticket” as almost every PPC fails to follow all the requirements
of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as long as
they have not followed all those requirements and the Driver
remains unknown, the Hirer cannot be liable for the PCN.
The most common reason that PPCs such as MET Parking fail to
fully comply with all the requirements is because they fail to
either issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) once liability has been
transferred by the Keeper or, more likely, they fail to include
copies of the documents specified in Paragraphs 13(2) of PoFA.
So, we need to establish whether you have identified the Driver.
If not, have MET sent you an NtH? If they have, did they include
copies of the relevant documents as required in PoFA paragraph
13(2)?
The next thing we need to establish is what the signs at the
location actually say. The signs are the contract that the
Driver agreed to, whether they read them or not (contract by
conduct). Can you get photos of the signs at the location? We
need to see an overview and some close ups of the actual signs
at the EV charging bays.
If the Driver has been identified, then the best chance of
getting the PCNs cancelled is if the signs are incapable of
creating a valid contract with the Driver. It is much more
difficult than if the Driver has not been identified.
Finally, why was the Driver charging an EV for over an hour on a
Rapid Charger? Are the Instavolt chargers at the location 50kW
versions or more powerful ones? Charging above 80% on a Rapid
charger is a waste of time as the charge rate begins to slow
dramatically in order to protect the battery. As the Polestar
has an ultra rapid charging capability of at least 150kW (205kW
if it’s a Polestar 2), it would be advisable to seek out ultra
rapid chargers, especially at locations that are not infested
with PPCs, and spend less time charging.
#Post#: 36055--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 8, 2024, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
getting a 7 fines so far and probably more for charging my EV
car
there for overstaying.
No, the NTK alleges:
'..exceeded the stay authorised or without authorisation'. Which
begs the question: what are the conditions?
As you're local you can get current(!) photos of the signs.
Hire vehicle cases are the most complex because they involve not
just 'parking' law but also contract law as between hirer and
lease company and relationships. Then throw in that most lease
companies don't know the procedures and PPCs who if they do know
them don't follow them!
Do you still have the car on hire? Short-term or lease?
If your relationship is ongoing, then you probably do not want
binary outcomes i.e. the hire company pay or you pay. But
getting a third option is probably not in your hands.
As it stands you can do nothing as regards the NTK because it's
not yours and unless Hertz have authorised you in writing to
make reps on their behalf then you don't feature in the process.
I suggest your priorities are:
Amend your posts to remove any suggestion as to the identity of
the driver;
Tell us and post whatever correspondence accompanied the NTK
from Hertz;
Get and post photos of the signs.
#Post#: 36057--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 8, 2024, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You might be beyond the deadline to amend your own post - if you
are, send me a direct message with what you want the post to
say, and I can edit it for you.
#Post#: 36071--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: slapdash
Date: September 8, 2024, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/tD3WPJE
The above image is from the charging app I use.
Irrespective of other restrictions posted a reasonable person
might conclude that the conditions on the sign next to the
charger might be the relevant ones.
They are only 60kw, over an hour must be fairly common. Fairly
trappy arrangement.
Btw Tesla Superchargers are often open to non Tesla EV. Download
the app from the charging tab on Tesla website, also gives a
write up.
Generally way cheaper, even more so off peak.
#Post#: 36073--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2024, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting that the little yellow sign next to the charger says
"No Parking At Any Time". If so, then charging cannot be
considered "parking".
Given that the bay is specifically designated for charging only
and has a "No Parking" sign, you have a strong basis to argue
that your vehicle was not "parked" but was instead engaged in
the permitted activity of charging, as indicated by the bay’s
intended use. MET’s issuance of a PCN for "exceeding the stay
authorised or without authorisation" overlooks the distinction
between parking and charging.
As MET are going to reject ANY appeal, the initial appeal is
only to get them to generate a POPLA code. It is at POPLA where
you are likely to have the PCN cancelled.
Besides the PoFA argument that the Hirer cannot be liable, you
can also point out why the driver cannot be liable. Here are
some key points you can raise in the appeal:
Charging, not Parking: Emphasise that the vehicle was in the bay
for the specific purpose of charging, not parking. The "No
Parking" sign makes it clear that the bay is for charging only,
and the vehicle was compliant with this requirement.
No Clear Stay Limits for Charging: If there is no clear signage
outlining how long an EV can remain while charging, the terms
would be ambiguous. If the car park imposes a general stay limit
but does not address the unique nature of charging, this lack of
clarity would make the charge unfair.
Reasonableness of Charging Time: Argue that the time spent
charging was necessary for the vehicle to recharge adequately.
If the car park allows charging but does not provide enough time
for a full or reasonable charge, this could be considered an
unreasonable restriction.
Lack of Contradiction in Signage: Since the bay is marked with
"No Parking" but allows charging, the signage suggests that the
activity you were engaged in (charging) is permissible, and the
penalty for exceeding a stay intended for parking does not apply
to charging.
As we still don't know whether the Hirer has received an NtH in
their own name or at least a letter of authorisation from Hertz
for them to deal with it, until that point is clarified, there
is little point in providing any actual appeal to use at the
various stages.
#Post#: 36142--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: mdar50743
Date: September 8, 2024, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Welcome. As an EV owner for almost 5 years, I have some
understanding of the issues surrounding rapid charging,
especially when using Instavolt. Not the cheapest and especially
if it comes with an added invoice of £100 per visit, ans in this
case, although I would question why the need to rapid charge for
over an hour each time.
>
> I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK),
Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now,
assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important
that we get these fact correct.
>
> Have you been in any contact with the operator, MET Parking,
and if so, have you revealed the identity of the Driver? MET
will only know the identity of the Driver of you, the Hirer, has
told them. Hopefully, you haven’t done so. Neither Hertz nor MET
know the identity of the driver and, as you can read on the NtK,
it the Driver who is liable for the alleged debt.
>
> The Driver, the Keeper and the Hirer are all separate legal
entities. Whilst the Keeper/Hirer may also be the Driver, that
is only known by the Keeper/Hirer. In the case of a hired
vehicle, the Hire company does not know who the Driver is. There
is no legal requirement for the Hirer to identify the Driver to
an unregulated private parking company.
>
> You have already, mistakenly, called these “fines”. Only an
“authority” such as a council or the police can issue “fines” or
“penalties” and only if an “offence” has been committed. MET are
a private company and definitely not an “authority” of any kind.
What they have issued is a speculative invoice for an alleged
breach of contract by the Driver. Can you show a single mention
of the words “fine”, “penalty” or “offence” on any of the
paperwork received?
>
> MET are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>to be able to transfer liability for the charge (invoice) from
the Driver, if they are unknown, to the Keeper or Hirer. That
can only happen if all the requirements of PoFA have been fully
complied with. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
>
> If the driver has been identified by the Hirer, then PoFA does
not apply and the Driver (now known to MET) remains liable and a
“golden ticket” opportunity has been wasted. Has the Driver been
identified?
>
> Normally, a PCN for a Hire/Lease vehicle is considered a
“golden ticket” as almost every PPC fails to follow all the
requirements of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and
as long as they have not followed all those requirements and the
Driver remains unknown, the Hirer cannot be liable for the PCN.
>
> The most common reason that PPCs such as MET Parking fail to
fully comply with all the requirements is because they fail to
either issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) once liability has been
transferred by the Keeper or, more likely, they fail to include
copies of the documents specified in Paragraphs 13(2) of PoFA.
>
> So, we need to establish whether you have identified the
Driver. If not, have MET sent you an NtH? If they have, did they
include copies of the relevant documents as required in PoFA
paragraph 13(2)?
>
> The next thing we need to establish is what the signs at the
location actually say. The signs are the contract that the
Driver agreed to, whether they read them or not (contract by
conduct). Can you get photos of the signs at the location? We
need to see an overview and some close ups of the actual signs
at the EV charging bays.
>
> If the Driver has been identified, then the best chance of
getting the PCNs cancelled is if the signs are incapable of
creating a valid contract with the Driver. It is much more
difficult than if the Driver has not been identified.
>
> Finally, why was the Driver charging an EV for over an hour on
a Rapid Charger? Are the Instavolt chargers at the location 50kW
versions or more powerful ones? Charging above 80% on a Rapid
charger is a waste of time as the charge rate begins to slow
dramatically in order to protect the battery. As the Polestar
has an ultra rapid charging capability of at least 150kW (205kW
if it’s a Polestar 2), it would be advisable to seek out ultra
rapid chargers, especially at locations that are not infested
with PPCs, and spend less time charging.
>
--- End Quote ---
I completely agree it's not the cheapest but when you're like
me, someone who's never charged before, this is really the only
way I found. There is another problem about this vehicle I
rented - it does take a long time to charge from 25% - 100% in
around 1:20 min at 120kw going down to around 9kw.
I note that what you have shown us is a copy of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) which is addressed to the Registered Keeper (RK),
Hertz, and not you, the Hirer (I presume). I will also, for now,
assume that the NtK you showed us was sent to you by Hertz.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is extremely important
that we get these fact correct.
Just to quote from hertz email I received:
Thanks for your email, I have investigated the terms and
conditions state that we will pay the fines when they are
received. This is an automated process. Therefore, I can issue
you with an appeal notice and you will need to appeal the
ticket. If you win the appeal, we will then refund accordingly.
Please note the rental agreement you signed gives the process
and you have agreed with these terms and conditions.
Please advise if you wish to go ahead and I will request the
appeal notice?
I have replied: I am writing to inform you that I plan to appeal
the fines associated with my rental. As such, I kindly request
that any previous and future fines not be charged to my account
until the appeal process is completed.
#Post#: 36148--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2024, 7:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But they aren’t “fines”. Ask them to show you the word “fine”
anywhere on the NtK. They are invoices from a private company
and there is no liability for Hertz to pay any invoice for an
alleged breach of contract by the driver.
If they pay the charge, there is absolutely no possibility of an
appeal. Check the wording in your hire agreement. Please show us
the wording. Invariably, the wording only refers to fines and
penalties for offences. PCNs from unregulated private parking
companies are only invoices and nothing to do with statutory
law.
If Hertz pay the PCNs instead of transferring any and all
liability for them from them to you, the it is money thrown
away. Quote PoFA paragraph 13(2) to Herts and tell them that if
they do not comply with the requirements of PoFA to transfer
liability to you, the Hirer, you will not be liable for their
mistake. You should note that if you withhold payment by
charging back any deductions from your credit card, they will
have to sue you and you would have an excellent chance of
beating them.
PoFA 13(2) states:
--- Quote ---
> 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—
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
So the law specifically states that the Keeper (Hertz) cannot be
liable for the charge as long as they give MET a statement that
the vehicle is hired to you and they include a copy of the hire
agreement and a copy of the statement of liability that you
signed when you hired the vehicle. As long as they do that
within 28 days of receiving the NtK, there can not be any
liability for Hertz to pay the charge and MET cannot peruse them
for it.
Once Hertz has done that, MET must then comply with the
requirements in PoFA paragraph 14(2) if they want to hold you,
the Hirer liable. If they have not complied with all the
requirements, then they cannot hold you liable as the Hirer. As
long as you have not identified the driver, they have nowhere
else to go and either abandon the alleged debt or else try their
luck in small claims court where they have zero chance, as
explained above.
So, if Hertz pay the PCNs, you have zero, nada, zilch chance of
appealing them. MET will be laughing all the way to the bank.
There is no chance to appeal a PCN once it has been paid. Have a
read of the NtK, it even says so on it.
Regarding charging an EV on a rapid charger, nobody should ever
try and charge above 80%-85%. The rate of charge is just too
slow. A DC charger does not balance the cells and you should
only use an AC charger to charge up to 100%, usually overnight
at home or an a “fast” public charger. The Polestar can AC
charge at up to 11kW.
#Post#: 36149--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: slapdash
Date: September 9, 2024, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Within your agreement with Hertz there will be a section on
"fines and charges" or somesuch.
This will detail what they can charge you, in some cases what
they will charge you. They are very often silent on private
parking charges. Dependant upon your agreement an argument may
possibly be made that they have no contractual right to pay the
charge and bill it. (There is a possibility a judge may
ultimately take a more purposive view).
Although there is a legal method of transferring the charges to
you this does not preclude Hertz from paying them and then
charging you (if the contract allows it).
Thus if Hertz do choose to pay them you have a contractual
dispute with them as to whether they were entitled to.
At the moment it is unclear whether Hertz intend to pay them and
charge you or whether they intend to transfer liability to you
(a process they will often get wrong anyway).
#Post#: 36180--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN EV Charging McDonald’s Fine
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2024, 5:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You would also be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)
even if the hire agreement did allow Hertz to pay the PCN as it
is an unfair term.
Have a read of section 62 of the Act
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62.
Also,
Section 57(4) applies.
You should point out to Hertz that if they pay the PCN, thereby
removing any right you have to appeal it, they are in breach of
section 57(4)(c) of Chapter 4 of the CRA 2015 which states:
--- Quote ---
> 57 Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted
>
> (4)That also means that a term of a contract to supply
services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it
would —
>
> [indent](c) allow a trader to put a person at a disadvantage
as a result of pursuing such a right or remedy[/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page