DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 40158--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 10, 2024, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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.
[/quote]
Tusker was called earlier and they said that they have not paid
the fine but CPM refused the transfer of liability.
Tusker was informed that if CPM have refused the transfer of
liability then prove it by sending the refusal.
We suspect there`s some bureaucracy laziness going on here.
#Post#: 40159--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If this was done by phone, follow up in writing, so that you
have evidence.
#Post#: 40191--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 10, 2024, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> If this was done by phone, follow up in writing, so that you
have evidence.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes he asked them to confirm in writing that they have contacted
CPM but CPM refused to transfer liability - below is the
response received.
"As discussed, we need to obtain proof from our fines processing
team to confirm the authority refused to transfer over liability
to you.
We will email you to let you know once we have heard back.
"
#Post#: 40196--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 10, 2024, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For heavens sake! Tell your friend to tell the "fines processing
team" that they never had to get in touch with CPM to transfer
the liability. They only had to send the tear off form and the
copies of the requested documents to CPM and that would be the
end of the matter. They are obfuscating.
They really are exposing their intellectual malnourishment and
shameful lack of understanding. That or they are trying to
wriggle out of their liability due to their incompetence.
There is not much time left for them to transfer the liability.
If CPM were really so stupid to refuse to accept a transfer of
liability, they are in breach of PoFA, KADOE and the BPA CoP.
#Post#: 40200--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There doesn't seem to be a tear off form on the PCN (other than
for payment), but there is a link to a website that purports to
be for transferring liability.
#Post#: 40209--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 10, 2024, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> For heavens sake! Tell your friend to tell the "fines
processing team" that they never had to get in touch with CPM to
transfer the liability. They only had to send the tear off form
and the copies of the requested documents to CPM and that would
be the end of the matter. They are obfuscating.
>
> They really are exposing their intellectual malnourishment and
shameful lack of understanding. That or they are trying to
wriggle out of their liability due to their incompetence.
>
> There is not much time left for them to transfer the
liability. If CPM were really so stupid to refuse to accept a
transfer of liability, they are in breach of PoFA, KADOE and the
BPA CoP.
>
--- End Quote ---
There`s no tear off - they have to fill in the details on
HTML https://transfers.uk-carparkmanagement.co.uk/
I don`t think they would have processed the PCN and notified CPM
of transfer of liability on Monday 23rd September and CPM
would have got back to them before Wednesday 25th (10.37 a.m) (
it is the time my friend received the email from Tusker with
details stating that CPM have refused transfer of liability.
#Post#: 40234--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 10, 2024, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, Tusker need to provide evidence of the refusal by CPM to
accept transfer of liability and the reason given by CPM.
They need to read the specific paragraphs of the Act to make it
clear that CPM refusing to accept transfer of liability is
irrelevant. There is an Act of parliament that specifically
states that as long as the hire company follows the correct
procedure, liability is transferred. If CPM refuse to accept the
transfer, they are acting unlawfully.
The actions taken by both Tusker and CPM are unlawful due to
non-compliance with the legal framework set out in the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Why Tusker's Actions are Unlawful
Failing to Properly Transfer Liability Under PoFA: By providing
the hirer with a letter of authorisation and a copy of the the
NtK, instead of ensuring that CPM issues a Notice to Hirer
(NtH), Tusker is not following the correct legal process for
transferring liability. The hirer cannot be lawfully pursued
based on a Notice to Keeper that was never addressed to them.
Potential Unlawful Billing of the Hirer: If Tusker pays the
parking charge and then seeks to recover the amount from the
hirer, it is acting unlawfully because the hirer has not been
formally made liable under the law. The hirer has no legal
obligation to pay a charge based solely on Tusker’s actions, as
the proper transfer of liability procedure was not followed.
Why CPM's Actions are Unlawful
Refusing to Accept Transfer of Liability After Receiving Proper
Documentation: If CPM has been provided with the hirer’s details
and the required documents, as per PoFA paragraph 13, they are
legally obligated to pursue the hirer by issuing an NtH. By
continuing to hold Tusker liable even though they complied with
the requirements of PoFA paragraph 13 for transfer of liability,
CPM is not complying with the law.
Attempting to Enforce a Parking Charge Without Proper Transfer
of Liability: CPM’s continued pursuit of Tusker for the parking
charge despite having the hirer’s information means they are
attempting to enforce a charge against a party who is not liable
under PoFA. This goes against the intent of the legislation,
which aims to ensure that liability for parking charges is
properly transferred to the party who was responsible for the
vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.
Resolving This Issue Through the Legal System
If CPM continues to pursue Tusker for the parking charge, and if
Tusker pays the charge and then seeks to recover it from the
hirer, the following legal steps should be taken:
Tusker Should Challenge CPM in Court: Tusker should bring a
claim against CPM for failing to accept the transfer of
liability. They should argue that they complied with PoFA by
providing the necessary documents to transfer liability to the
hirer, and therefore, CPM’s continued pursuit of them is
unlawful.
The Hirer Could Dispute the Charge if Billed by Tusker: If
Tusker pays the parking charge and tries to recover it from the
hirer, the hirer should contest this on the grounds that they
were never legally made liable under PoFA. Since CPM did not
issue an NtH to the hirer, there is no legal basis for Tusker to
demand payment from the hirer.
Legal Recourse for the Hirer Against Tusker: If Tusker tries to
recover the parking charge from the hirer, the hirer should seek
legal recourse against Tusker for attempting to charge them
unlawfully. This should include challenging any attempts to
deduct the amount from wages (if a salary sacrifice scheme is in
effect) or disputing the invoice in a small claims court.
The Proper Resolution
To resolve the situation in accordance with the law:
[indent]• CPM should issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) after
receiving the hirer’s details from Tusker. This correctly and
lawfully transfers liability to the hirer.
• Tusker should not attempt to recover the charge from the hirer
unless CPM has properly issued an NtH and the hirer has been
lawfully made liable.
• If CPM refuses to issue the NtH, Tusker should challenge CPM's
actions rather than paying the charge. This approach would
uphold the legal framework established by PoFA and ensure that
liability is correctly assigned.[/indent]
So, this needs to be explained in detail to both Tusker and CPM.
If Tusker filled in that form and provided copies of the
requested documents, liability has been transferred whether CPM
accepts it or not. The ball is then in CPMs court and if they
are acting lawfully, they must send an NtH to the Hirer. If they
don't, then the hirer is not liable. Tusker is not liable either
because they followed the lawful process to transfer liability.
#Post#: 40238--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Given Tusker's correspondence so far, if I were a betting man
I'd say them having provided CPM with the required documentation
is a very big 'if'.
#Post#: 40240--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 10, 2024, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, Tusker need to provide evidence of the refusal by CPM to
accept transfer of liability and the reason given by CPM.
>
> They need to read the specific paragraphs of the Act to make
it clear that CPM refusing to accept transfer of liability is
irrelevant. There is an Act of parliament that specifically
states that as long as the hire company follows the correct
procedure, liability is transferred. If CPM refuse to accept the
transfer, they are acting unlawfully.
>
> The actions taken by both Tusker and CPM are unlawful due to
non-compliance with the legal framework set out in the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> Why Tusker's Actions are Unlawful
>
> Failing to Properly Transfer Liability Under PoFA: By
providing the hirer with a letter of authorisation and a copy of
the the NtK, instead of ensuring that CPM issues a Notice to
Hirer (NtH), Tusker is not following the correct legal process
for transferring liability. The hirer cannot be lawfully pursued
based on a Notice to Keeper that was never addressed to them.
>
> Potential Unlawful Billing of the Hirer: If Tusker pays the
parking charge and then seeks to recover the amount from the
hirer, it is acting unlawfully because the hirer has not been
formally made liable under the law. The hirer has no legal
obligation to pay a charge based solely on Tusker’s actions, as
the proper transfer of liability procedure was not followed.
>
> Why CPM's Actions are Unlawful
>
> Refusing to Accept Transfer of Liability After Receiving
Proper Documentation: If CPM has been provided with the hirer’s
details and the required documents, as per PoFA paragraph 13,
they are legally obligated to pursue the hirer by issuing an
NtH. By continuing to hold Tusker liable even though they
complied with the requirements of PoFA paragraph 13 for transfer
of liability, CPM is not complying with the law.
>
> Attempting to Enforce a Parking Charge Without Proper Transfer
of Liability: CPM’s continued pursuit of Tusker for the parking
charge despite having the hirer’s information means they are
attempting to enforce a charge against a party who is not liable
under PoFA. This goes against the intent of the legislation,
which aims to ensure that liability for parking charges is
properly transferred to the party who was responsible for the
vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.
>
> Resolving This Issue Through the Legal System
>
> If CPM continues to pursue Tusker for the parking charge, and
if Tusker pays the charge and then seeks to recover it from the
hirer, the following legal steps should be taken:
>
> Tusker Should Challenge CPM in Court: Tusker should bring a
claim against CPM for failing to accept the transfer of
liability. They should argue that they complied with PoFA by
providing the necessary documents to transfer liability to the
hirer, and therefore, CPM’s continued pursuit of them is
unlawful.
>
> The Hirer Could Dispute the Charge if Billed by Tusker: If
Tusker pays the parking charge and tries to recover it from the
hirer, the hirer should contest this on the grounds that they
were never legally made liable under PoFA. Since CPM did not
issue an NtH to the hirer, there is no legal basis for Tusker to
demand payment from the hirer.
>
> Legal Recourse for the Hirer Against Tusker: If Tusker tries
to recover the parking charge from the hirer, the hirer should
seek legal recourse against Tusker for attempting to charge them
unlawfully. This should include challenging any attempts to
deduct the amount from wages (if a salary sacrifice scheme is in
effect) or disputing the invoice in a small claims court.
>
> The Proper Resolution
>
> To resolve the situation in accordance with the law:
>
> [indent]• CPM should issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) after
receiving the hirer’s details from Tusker. This correctly and
lawfully transfers liability to the hirer.
>
> • Tusker should not attempt to recover the charge from the
hirer unless CPM has properly issued an NtH and the hirer has
been lawfully made liable.
>
> • If CPM refuses to issue the NtH, Tusker should challenge
CPM's actions rather than paying the charge. This approach would
uphold the legal framework established by PoFA and ensure that
liability is correctly assigned.[/indent]
>
> So, this needs to be explained in detail to both Tusker and
CPM. If Tusker filled in that form and provided copies of the
requested documents, liability has been transferred whether CPM
accepts it or not. The ball is then in CPMs court and if they
are acting lawfully, they must send an NtH to the Hirer. If they
don't, then the hirer is not liable. Tusker is not liable either
because they followed the lawful process to transfer liability.
>
--- End Quote ---
I`ll get my friend to call them tomorrow to see what`s happening
and update you guys.
#Post#: 40243--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 10, 2024, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Follow up any phone call in writing. Ideally it'd all be done in
writing but I realise there's an element of urgency here.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page