DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90659--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: September 19, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, no. Your defence is procedural.
>
> I was not the owner.....
>
> This arises because you believe that *******(the lease
company) used the grounds of 'We are a vehicle-hire company
etc.' in their representations and that the authority accepted
the same. However, this is not permissible under the Act which
restricts these grounds to, inter alia, agreements of less than
6 months: my lease is for *** years.
>
> The authority may not consider me to be the owner and the PCN
must be cancelled.
>
> I do not dispute the facts of the contravention and therefore,
should the authority reject these representations, I should be
grateful if they would not belabour this point but instead focus
on the grounds of my representations i.e. confirm the grounds on
which the registered keeper's representations were accepted and
provide the supporting mandatory documents e.g. hiring agreement
etc. A signed statement of the lessee's liability under a lease
would not be acceptable.
>
>
> OP, I've no idea whether ****(the lease company) used the
correct grounds in this case, which could ONLY be that they were
not the 'keeper' (because the presumption that the registered
keeper is the person by whom the vehicle is kept is rebuttable),
but it's worth a punt because otherwise I cannot see a defence
on the facts as we know them.
>
>
> For information:
>
> (d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm ..
>
> (i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement.
>
> .....
> (9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and
“vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of
the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).
>
> (paras. 1(4)(d) and 1(9) of Schedule 1 to the London Local
Authorities etc. Act 2003 refer).
>
>
> (7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms
of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed
period of less than six months (s66(7) Road Traffic Offenders
Act refers)
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks again for this. I essentially copy pasted this and
challenged both PCNs arguing I wasn't the owner.
I have received the rejection letters attached below (both
letters are virtually identical, so posting only one).
The council says they have reviewed the terms of the lease but
the lease company explicitly said that they did NOT share the
actual lease document with the council. All they have sent is
just one page giving my details, I am putting that at the end as
well.
What is the best course of action for me? Pay £160 and move on
OR there is any hope in appealing this to the adjudicator (what
would that entail?)
Rejection Letter:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/eICnTvj.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Lcs9P76.png
Letter from Lease company to Council:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/3M2LKmE.png
#Post#: 90882--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: September 22, 2025, 1:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As the 14-day 50% discount is expected to run out day after
tomorrow, I am thinking to pay and move on latest by then unless
I hear anything here. Many thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page