DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83452--------------------------------------------------
Don't ever hire a vehicle from Mute.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 30, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I observed this case yesterday: 2250079954
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This is one of a number of cases arising from identical facts
and raising identical issues, and I give this identical decision
in respect of all of them.
I heard this appeal by video/audio link speaking to the
Appellant and Mr Hannan an officer of the Council.
The Appellant’s case is in bare summary as follows. He had
originally hired the vehicle, an electric motorcycle from a firm
“Mute” under a vehicle hiring agreement which expired in January
2024. However he retimed possession of the vehicle as he was
being charged the monthly hire fee. The vehicle subsequently
broke down on the 13th August as it was being ridden and he then
parked it at the location where on various occasions between
August and October it subsequently incurred the series of PCNs
which are the subject of these proceedings. Instead of making
arrangements to move the vehicle himself he contacted Mute which
is what he was required to do under the terms of the original
agreement. The company was clearly dilatory in collecting the
vehicle despite numerous reminders by the Appellant.
Having heard the Appellant in person on two occasions and having
considered his documentary evidence I find him to be a truthful
witness. The cases raise two issues i.e. whether the vehicle was
in contravention on the basis of an exemption in the relevant
Traffic Management Order; and if it was, whether the Appellant
is legally liable for the penalties.
As to the first point I do not consider that at the time the
PCNs were issued exemption applied. Although I accept that the
vehicle had initially broken down the Appellant has to prove
that “the vehicle was waiting due to circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the driver”. I do not accept that it was
beyond the reasonable control of the driver to arrange to have
the vehicle removed promptly, at least within a day or two.
Whilst the Appellant acted reasonably enough in informing Mute
this did not absolve him from the responsibility which rested on
him as the vehicle’s driver if he wished to rely on the
exemption, particularly when, on the Appellant’s own evidence,
there was at that time no formal agreement with Mute actually in
force. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was in
contravention on each occasion that the PCNs were lawfully
issued.
The remaining question is who is liable for the penalty. In law
under Under Regulation 6 The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 that person is
the owner of the contravening vehicle unless the vehicle is on
hire under a vehicle hiring agreement.
Mute has provided two agreements., one running from the 4th July
to the 7th December and one running from the 20th July to the
20th November. The Appellant strenuously denies having entered
into or signed these agreements. They bear two different
signatures neither of which appear to match the Appellant’s
genuine signature as shown on the original agreement and on his
passport.
The Council, following my request over the adjournment, wrote to
Mute for an explanation and to enquire whether the Appellant had
ever attended their premises to sign an agreement. No reply was
received. In the light of this, and on the basis of the
inconsistent signatures, the fact that the agreements overlap
and the Appellant’s own evidence I am not satisfied that they
are agreements which the Appellant entered into. I speculate
that they may have been produced in an attempt to cover the
Appellant’s continued possession of the vehicle.
The position is therefore that although the vehicle had remained
in the possession of the Appellant with Mute’s consent, whether
express or implied, he is not the owner of the vehicle nor in
possession of it under a vehicle hiring agreement. The Appeal is
therefore allowed and the Notices to Owner must be cancelled.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s)
mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without
considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are
not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s)
mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without
considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are
not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s)
mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without
considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are
not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This is one of a number of cases arising from identical facts
and raising identical issues, and I give this identical decision
in respect of all of them.
I heard this appeal by video/audio link speaking to the
Appellant and Mr Hannan an officer of the Council.
The Appellant’s case is in bare summary as follows. He had
originally hired the vehicle, an electric motorcycle from a firm
“Mute” under a vehicle hiring agreement which expired in January
2024. However he retimed possession of the vehicle as he was
being charged the monthly hire fee. The vehicle subsequently
broke down on the 13th August as it was being ridden and he then
parked it at the location where on various occasions between
August and October it subsequently incurred the series of PCNs
which are the subject of these proceedings. Instead of making
arrangements to move the vehicle himself he contacted Mute which
is what he was required to do under the terms of the original
agreement. The company was clearly dilatory in collecting the
vehicle despite numerous reminders by the Appellant.
Having heard the Appellant in person on two occasions and having
considered his documentary evidence I find him to be a truthful
witness. The cases raise two issues i.e. whether the vehicle was
in contravention on the basis of an exemption in the relevant
Traffic Management Order; and if it was, whether the Appellant
is legally liable for the penalties.
As to the first point I do not consider that at the time the
PCNs were issued exemption applied. Although I accept that the
vehicle had initially broken down the Appellant has to prove
that “the vehicle was waiting due to circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the driver”. I do not accept that it was
beyond the reasonable control of the driver to arrange to have
the vehicle removed promptly, at least within a day or two.
Whilst the Appellant acted reasonably enough in informing Mute
this did not absolve him from the responsibility which rested on
him as the vehicle’s driver if he wished to rely on the
exemption, particularly when, on the Appellant’s own evidence,
there was at that time no formal agreement with Mute actually in
force. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was in
contravention on each occasion that the PCNs were lawfully
issued.
The remaining question is who is liable for the penalty. In law
under Under Regulation 6 The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 that person is
the owner of the contravening vehicle unless the vehicle is on
hire under a vehicle hiring agreement.
Mute has provided two agreements., one running from the 4th July
to the 7th December and one running from the 20th July to the
20th November. The Appellant strenuously denies having entered
into or signed these agreements. They bear two different
signatures neither of which appear to match the Appellant’s
genuine signature as shown on the original agreement and on his
passport.
The Council, following my request over the adjournment, wrote to
Mute for an explanation and to enquire whether the Appellant had
ever attended their premises to sign an agreement. No reply was
received. In the light of this, and on the basis of the
inconsistent signatures, the fact that the agreements overlap
and the Appellant’s own evidence I am not satisfied that they
are agreements which the Appellant entered into. I speculate
that they may have been produced in an attempt to cover the
Appellant’s continued possession of the vehicle.
The position is therefore that although the vehicle had remained
in the possession of the Appellant with Mute’s consent, whether
express or implied, he is not the owner of the vehicle nor in
possession of it under a vehicle hiring agreement. The Appeal is
therefore allowed and the Notices to Owner must be cancelled.
*****
No reply was received. Great humour from EH. ;D
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1