DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39874--------------------------------------------------
PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 8, 2024, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a split off from the other thread -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm/<br
/>
The hirer of the vehicle was parked in Broadstairs Botany bay
Further up Opposite Door number 102 -
HTML https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.386742,1.4363634,3a,75y,314.08h,71.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx6QT9JsthyMPw76zgQ7nkw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D18.28150405020142%26panoid%3Dx6QT9JsthyMPw76zgQ7nkw%26yaw%3D314.0788668681936!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
No road markings just some signs which is scattered all around
the road.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zX45Z6p/PCNBotany-Bay.jpg
The hirer of the vehicle did not received a PCN not under their
name but this was received under the lease company and no
further communication received. What the lease company does is
give the hirer an email to state that they (lease company) give
full authorisation for the hirer to dispute the charge.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/FDf1259/PCNJD1.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LvxkV5B/PCNJD2.png
#Post#: 39896--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 8, 2024, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As far as a car that is leased/hired, the Registered Keeper
(the hire/lease company) receives the NtK. If they want to
transfer liability way from them as the Keeper, they need to do
so by providing the hirer/lessee details to the PPC. Once they
have done that, the PPC should send a Notice to Hirer (NtH) to
the hirer/lessee.
>
> At this point, neither the PPC nor the lessor/hire company
know who was driving. All they do know is the name of the Keeper
and/or the Hirer. They only way the PPC would know the drivers
identity is if the hirer blabbed it to them, inadvertently or
otherwise.
>
> In 99.999% of cases, the PPC fails to provide copies of the
necessary documents with the NtH. So, even if everything else in
the NtH is PoFA compliant, by failing to proved the cookie of
the required documents, they have failed to fully comply with
all the requirements of PoFA and so, cannot transfer liability
from the unknown driver to the Hirer.
>
> What you showed us is a copy of the NtK received by the lease
company. If the lease company followed the correct procedure for
transferring liability which means they had to proved copies of
certain agreements as noted in paragraph 13 of PoFA and sent the
copy of the anti to the Hirer, there can be no comeback against
them by the PPC.
>
> Hopefully, for your friends sake, the lease company did comply
with the requirements of para 13 of PoFA and didn’t simply only
send a copy of the NtK to your friend. If that was the case,
then the PPC will hold the lease company liable as the Keeper
and if they’re like a lot of clueless lease/hire companies, they
will simply pay then chargers and charge it back to the
hirer/lessee.
>
> For now, your friend is waiting for the NtH in their name from
the PPC. Until an NtH is received, your friend cannot appeal the
copy of the NtK that is I. The lease company’s name.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 39898--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 8, 2024, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The clueless lease company, Tusker, has not complied with he
instructions on the NtK in order to transfer liability away from
them to the Hirer. So, even if the Hirer does nothing, CPMUK
will hold Tusker liable and will pursue them.
The Hirer can try and appeal as the Hirer but CPMUK is not
required to accept any appeal unless it is in the name of the
person or company named on the NtK.
If Tusker end up paying then PCN because of their failure to
transfer liability using the correct process as shown in the NtK
and as per PoFA paragraph 13 and then try to charge the Hirer,
they will have done so unlawfully.
That then becomes a different matter and not a parking one.
CPMUK would be laughing all the way to the bank and are no
longer involved in the matter. If Tusker realises their mistake
after they are sued by the Hirer for the amount they incorrectly
charged the Hirer and want their money back, they’d have to sue
CPMUK. Good luck with that, but not our concern.
The Hirer, assuming it is not too late, which I fear it is, must
either instruct Tusker to comply with the instructions in the
NtK and do a PoFA complaint transfer of liability to absolve
themselves of liability, or the Hirer must try and persuade
CPMUK that they have authority to deal with the PCN, but they
can only do that as the Keeper, which they are not. The Hirer
has to persuade CPMUK to issue a valid NtH, which is very
doubtful they would agree to.
You never know though. You are dealing with intellectually
malnourished ex-clampers and they may just send one, not being
able to comply with PoFA paragraph 14 but realising anyway as
they never comply with under normal procedures.
#Post#: 39987--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 9, 2024, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The clueless lease company, Tusker, has not complied with he
instructions on the NtK in order to transfer liability away from
them to the Hirer. So, even if the Hirer does nothing, CPMUK
will hold Tusker liable and will pursue them.
>
> The Hirer can try and appeal as the Hirer but CPMUK is not
required to accept any appeal unless it is in the name of the
person or company named on the NtK.
>
> If Tusker end up paying then PCN because of their failure to
transfer liability using the correct process as shown in the NtK
and as per PoFA paragraph 13 and then try to charge the Hirer,
they will have done so unlawfully.
>
> That then becomes a different matter and not a parking one.
CPMUK would be laughing all the way to the bank and are no
longer involved in the matter. If Tusker realises their mistake
after they are sued by the Hirer for the amount they incorrectly
charged the Hirer and want their money back, they’d have to sue
CPMUK. Good luck with that, but not our concern.
>
> The Hirer, assuming it is not too late, which I fear it is,
must either instruct Tusker to comply with the instructions in
the NtK and do a PoFA complaint transfer of liability to absolve
themselves of liability, or the Hirer must try and persuade
CPMUK that they have authority to deal with the PCN, but they
can only do that as the Keeper, which they are not. The Hirer
has to persuade CPMUK to issue a valid NtH, which is very
doubtful they would agree to.
>
> You never know though. You are dealing with intellectually
malnourished ex-clampers and they may just send one, not being
able to comply with PoFA paragraph 14 but realising anyway as
they never comply with under normal procedures.
>
--- End Quote ---
If i`m not mistaken the PCN is paid already and if my friend
wins the appeal they refund the credit. Tusker says that due to
legislation they are not able to transfer liability (not sure if
true) - in addition to the pcn, below is what Tusker sends in
the email
HTML https://i.ibb.co/KDQXjzc/PCNJD04.png
HTML https://i.ibb.co/M1WFYxz/PCNJD03.png
#Post#: 40004--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely moronic by the lease company Tusker. Completely
breaches BVRLA guidelines and probably breaches the lease
agreement. We need to see the exact terms in the lease agreement
that refer to parking charges.
On the back of the NtK they received it specifically says:
--- Quote ---
> Vehicle Hirers
>
> If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was on hire at
the time of the parking incident please let us know and provide
us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement
of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
--- End Quote ---
So, Tusker are lying when they state in their letter that
"...the private parking operator will not allow them to transfer
liability and only provide Tusker with the option to pay the
charge notice."
CPM have correctly advised exactly what Tusker need to do to
transfer liability away from them to the Hirer. PoFA paragraph
13 explains how once this has been complied with, there is no
more liability on Tusker, irrespective if the Hirer disputes of
fails to engage with CPM.
For the Hirers education (and obviously the morons at Tusker),
here is the relevant section of Paragraph 13:
--- Quote ---
> 13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges
incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land
if—
>
> (a)the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person
under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
>
> (b)the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the
relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as
the case may be).
>
> (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—
>
> (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.
>
> (3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c)
must—
>
> (a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the
hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that
may be incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to
the hirer;
>
> (b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a
residential, business or other address) as one at which
documents may be given to the hirer;
--- End Quote ---
So, now that you know you are dealing with morons and
intellectually malnourished liars, you need to understand the
situation. The PCN has been paid and CPM are in hysterics on
their way to the bank.
Tusker has stupidly assumed that the PCN was the same as a
"Penalty" Notice which is issued under statutory law, not civil
law. CPM are not an authority of any kind that can issue
"penalties" of "fines" which are issued by councils and the
police. No "offence" was committed. A PCN is simply a
speculative invoice issued by an unregulated private parking
company. Once the PCN is paid, liability has been accepted and
there is no appeals process that can be used to try and get that
money back. It's gone.
Without having seen the actual terms of the hire (lease)
agreement regarding parking charges, Tusker will still have
breached the CRA 2015. The only way to recover the money Tusker
have unlawfully charged the hirer will be to get them to admit
their mistake and pay the hirer back and if they still want to
recover the money they threw away at CPM will be for them to sue
CPM (good lick with that). If Tusker refuse or try and evade
liability for their stupid mistake, you would have to sue them
in the county court where you would have an incredibly solid
case.
The hirer could dispute any funds taken by Tusker with their
bank if it was then by direct debit or with their credit card
company if it was taken by that method. The Keeper is in dispute
with Tusker.
Had the utter feckwits at Tusker simply transferred liability as
advised, CPM would have been required to issue an NtH to the
hirer ad they would have screwed up because these scammers
always omit to include copies of the documents that were
provided by the hire company with the transfer of liability, and
the hirer would have zero liability as long as they don't
identify the driver.
I shudder at the thought of how many hirers (or lessees) end up
forfeiting their hard earned money because of the stupidity of
the hire/lease companies ignorance and have absolutely no idea
how to properly challenge it.
#Post#: 40005--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 9, 2024, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not clear from that letter whether the hire firm have
actually paid anything yet. If they haven't, the hirer's
priority for now is to get them to actually nominate the hirer.
#Post#: 40011--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> It's not clear from that letter whether the hire firm have
actually paid anything yet. If they haven't, the hirer's
priority for now is to get them to actually nominate the hirer.
>
--- End Quote ---
True. I was going on the OPs statement that "If i`m not mistaken
the PCN is paid already and if my friend wins the appeal they
refund the credit." A scenario that is not uncommon.
If the PCN hasn't been paid by Tusker an urgent response to that
mendacious letter claiming that Tusker are unable to transfer
liability needs to be made and they should be instructed to
follow CPMs and PoFA requirements to effect immediate transfer
of liability and explaining that that is the only way that the
hirer can comply with the PCN.
Tusker have until Monday 21st October to transfer liability
correctly. After that, CPM will not give a rats bottom and will
simply pursue Tusker.
Suggest sending the following as an URGENT letter (preferably as
a PDF attachment by email) to Tusker:
--- Quote ---
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Date]
>
> Fleet Admin Team
> Tuskerdirect Limited
> Building 4, Hatters Lane
> Croxley Green Business Park
> Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 8YF
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Re: Parking Charge Notice Reference [PCN Reference Number] for
Vehicle Registration [Vehicle Registration Number]
>
> I am writing regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) and Tusker's correspondence dated 25th September
2024, in which you claimed that "the private parking operator
will not allow you to transfer liability and only provide Tusker
with the option to pay the charge notice." This statement is
patently false and misrepresents the process clearly set out in
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> The Notice to Keeper issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd
(CPM) clearly includes a very bold heading at the top of the
reverse side: "Vehicle Hirers." This section explicitly outlines
the procedure for transferring liability under Schedule 4,
paragraph 13 of POFA, allowing the registered keeper to transfer
liability by providing the hirer's details, the hire agreement,
and a signed statement of liability. How could Tusker miss such
a prominent instruction and then claim to me, in no uncertain
terms, that it is not possible to transfer liability? This is
mendacious and it demonstrates a disregard for the proper
handling of this matter.
>
> If Tusker does not follow the correct procedure to transfer
liability by the deadline of 21st October 2024, then Tusker will
remain liable for the PCN. Should Tusker choose to pay the
charge notice instead of transferring liability correctly, this
will amount to an admission of liability as the Registered
Keeper. Any attempt to pass this charge on to me, the hirer,
would be unlawful and would breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015
(CRA), as it would deprive me of my statutory right to appeal
the PCN as the correct party. Under PoFA, the driver, the keeper
and the hirer are separate legal entities.
>
> Your handling of this matter has been wholly inadequate, and
the misinformation provided undermines my ability to contest the
PCN fairly. The CRA prohibits the imposition of unfair practices
that deny consumers their legal rights, and Tusker’s conduct in
this situation certainly falls into that category.
>
> If the recipient of this letter is unable to grasp the
seriousness and urgent nature of this issue, I strongly
recommend forwarding it to Tusker's legal advisors for review,
as any consequences arising from a failure to comply with the
correct legal procedures will rest entirely with Tusker. I
expect a written confirmation that the transfer of liability has
been completed in line with POFA before 21st October 2024.
>
> Failure to comply may result in further legal action and a
formal complaint to regulatory authorities, as I will not
hesitate to protect my rights under the law.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 40027--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 9, 2024, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It gets more interesting. Just called my mate who said that
Tusker takes the money out of his payslip.
Given that the vehicle is through a salary sacrifice, does that
mean Tusker is adding the charge say 100£ and it gets deducted
from the salary sacrifice which is before tax?
He will be sending me the agreement and has mentioned he will
check previous payslips where charges have been paid.
(and they do charge an admin fee on top as well)
This is from Tuskers website -
"As Tusker is the registered owner and keeper of your vehicle,
we will be sent any speeding, parking or congestion charging
fines that you might receive. Tusker will pay and recharge all
local authority fines including Transport for London and all
toll roads and recharge these to you. If your vehicle is issued
with a private land fine, where possible we will always request
a transfer of liability and the private parking companies will
reissue the notice directly to you for settlement. If you
receive a fine, we might charge you an administration fee of
£10+VAT, which will be deducted from your net salary by your
employer. You can of course contest any fines that you receive,
but you must do this with the issuer directly. If you are
planning on contesting a fine, please let Tusker know you are
doing this, as otherwise we will always pay a fine on your
behalf before it escalates to the debt recovery stage."
#Post#: 40058--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: roythebus
Date: October 9, 2024, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems like unlawful deduction from wages as well, oh dear.
#Post#: 40063--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 5:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve no idea how your friends salary sacrifice is set up with
Tusker and is beyond the scope of advice we give here. However,
as you have shown in your post, it even says in their website:
--- Quote ---
> If your vehicle is issued with a private land fine, where
possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the
private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to
you for settlement.
--- End Quote ---
Whilst the author of that bit calls it a “private land fine”, it
clearly states that “they will always request a transfer of
liability”. So, it is pretty obvious that whoever issued the
letter and authorisation, was not being truthful.
Make sure your friend sends that letter urgently to Tusker so
that liability is transferred correctly and before the deadline
so that he can be issued an NtH and then appeal it as the hirer
and most likely not be liable due the inevitable screw up by
CPM.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 7
DIR Next Page