Tweet
Good morning all, I'm new to the forum, I'm a long time user of Pepipoo but the forum appears to be down. I found this forum via a Google search so just wanted to say thanks in advance for any support.
I've had a long running PCN which I've ignored. However, I've now had a court claim through the post, dated 28th Aug.
Back in 2020 I complained to POPLA and the assessor upheld the complaint.
I complained to POPLA's complaints team about the assessor on this basis:
----
This appeal must be allowed because the operator Euro Car Parks failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which is relevant to the hirer and operator. The assessor appears to be mistakenly using POFA 13 for the operator/hirer relationship. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable for the charge. I have referred to the right to not name the name and keeper liability. A notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 11/06/2020, this was after a PCN was issued to the hire company on 27/05/2020. The operator has failed to provide evidence which shows that the appellant had signed a statement of liability when he hired the vehicle and that this was sent along with the PCN. The assessor has completely ignored the requirement to supply the hire agreement and notice to keeper with the notice to hirer.
The assessor has used the phrase “registered hirer” in their response, I would ask what meaning does this have in the context of this case as it is not clear as to what he means. The registered hirer could not possibly be the registered keeper as this role is taken by the hire company, more clarity is needed by the assessor and I would hasten to say more training. I feel that the lead assessor in this matter has erred in the interpretation of law, it must be reviewed and the decision amended to one of an upholding of the appeal.
----
I then received this response from the complaint's team:
----
I note within your grounds of appeal you stated:
“1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).”
You raised concerns about hirer liability. As you have not identified as the driver, the operator can only seek to hold you responsible for the PCN under hirer liability.
Having reviewed the operator’s evidence, I can see that the operator is holding you responsible for the PCN. In its evidence it states that you identified as the driver, then you declined to identify the driver, so it is holding you responsible as hirer. I also note that you did not identify as the driver.
As such the assessor was required to review the relevant sections of PoFA2012 that applied.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA 2012 states:
“(2) The conditions are that—
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;”
Paragraph 13 (2) OF PoFA 2012 states:
“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.”
Having viewed the operator’s evidence I can see that the operator has not provided any documents.
The assessor within their grounds of appeal was satisfied that hirer liability was met when assessing this appeal. Whilst this is not the decision I would have made personally; the assessor has considered all evidence and ultimately made an incorrect judgement call. The assessor has not made a procedural error and as such the case would not need reassessing.
I have taken your feedback on board and forwarded this to the assessor’s team leader for coaching purposes and have upheld this complaint.
----
I ignored the letters I received subsequently and as much as I have fought up until this point, I'd be really grateful for a little guidance on the next steps based on the information above please.
Happy to provide any redacted docs necessary.
Thanks
I've had a long running PCN which I've ignored. However, I've now had a court claim through the post, dated 28th Aug.
Back in 2020 I complained to POPLA and the assessor upheld the complaint.
I complained to POPLA's complaints team about the assessor on this basis:
----
This appeal must be allowed because the operator Euro Car Parks failed to deliver a notice to hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which is relevant to the hirer and operator. The assessor appears to be mistakenly using POFA 13 for the operator/hirer relationship. The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver of the vehicle and potentially liable for the charge. I have referred to the right to not name the name and keeper liability. A notice to hirer was sent to the appellant on 11/06/2020, this was after a PCN was issued to the hire company on 27/05/2020. The operator has failed to provide evidence which shows that the appellant had signed a statement of liability when he hired the vehicle and that this was sent along with the PCN. The assessor has completely ignored the requirement to supply the hire agreement and notice to keeper with the notice to hirer.
The assessor has used the phrase “registered hirer” in their response, I would ask what meaning does this have in the context of this case as it is not clear as to what he means. The registered hirer could not possibly be the registered keeper as this role is taken by the hire company, more clarity is needed by the assessor and I would hasten to say more training. I feel that the lead assessor in this matter has erred in the interpretation of law, it must be reviewed and the decision amended to one of an upholding of the appeal.
----
I then received this response from the complaint's team:
----
I note within your grounds of appeal you stated:
“1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).”
You raised concerns about hirer liability. As you have not identified as the driver, the operator can only seek to hold you responsible for the PCN under hirer liability.
Having reviewed the operator’s evidence, I can see that the operator is holding you responsible for the PCN. In its evidence it states that you identified as the driver, then you declined to identify the driver, so it is holding you responsible as hirer. I also note that you did not identify as the driver.
As such the assessor was required to review the relevant sections of PoFA2012 that applied.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 of PoFA 2012 states:
“(2) The conditions are that—
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;”
Paragraph 13 (2) OF PoFA 2012 states:
“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.”
Having viewed the operator’s evidence I can see that the operator has not provided any documents.
The assessor within their grounds of appeal was satisfied that hirer liability was met when assessing this appeal. Whilst this is not the decision I would have made personally; the assessor has considered all evidence and ultimately made an incorrect judgement call. The assessor has not made a procedural error and as such the case would not need reassessing.
I have taken your feedback on board and forwarded this to the assessor’s team leader for coaching purposes and have upheld this complaint.
----
I ignored the letters I received subsequently and as much as I have fought up until this point, I'd be really grateful for a little guidance on the next steps based on the information above please.
Happy to provide any redacted docs necessary.
Thanks
Comment