PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 52JM Connell Crescent W5
WillStitched
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Hi,
I am new to this site but hope you can assist.

A driver in our company has received a PCN for driving into Connell Crescent on 11/11/2019. They were in a lease vehicle which is leased by O2 and had then been loaned to my employer for us to carry out some contracting work on mobile phone network coverage testing. As part of this testing, we are asked to follow a designated Satnav route and this is what prompted them to drive into this road.

I believe they have two arguments against this PCN. The first is that they were trying to access their place of work, and that as you have stated below, the signs used are Except for Access signs and any restriction placed with them must be clear and unambiguous. The second argument, is that the sign on the left was shielded by a hoarding, meaning it is not visible until you have turned onto the road. The sign on the right could be construed to be applicable to the main road, as it is on the left hand side of that carriageway.

They are going to request a copy of the video footage, but as you have rightly stated that this is a honey trap. As they were carrying out their work and were not familiar with the area, I do not think they should be penalised for this. Needless to say, the Leasors of the vehicle refuse to take any responsibility even though it was them who sent us along this route.

The date of the PCN is 12/02/2020 so over three months after the alleged offence took place.

Thanks for any advice in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 17:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



As all other threads on here, post up the PCN, the video evidence and a link to the exact location on google street view. Use an external site like imgur.com to host the images, use flash video downloader https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/f...jenkahhlhccpdbc to download the video and then put it up on youtube or vimeo or similar.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 19:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Ok will do. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 17:21
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Ok, I have now managed to obtain the following:




https://goo.gl/maps/8p6FNDfUaWo9tVFC7
https://youtu.be/Cno6FmWmpVA





I also have correspondence from the lease company with the following reply to the original PCN of 21/11/2019:

Subject:Representation, ref.: EA95979354 ­ 11/11/2019, vehicle registration number: RJ67OPN
Date:05/12/2019
Ealing London Borough Council
Parking Services, PO Box 46264
London
W5 2UN
LP Ref. 65627/952
05/12/2019
Dear Sir / Madam
Registration number: RJ67OPN
Penalty charge notice: EA95979354
We are writing with regards to the above fine. Would you please note that at the time of the offence the vehicle was
on a long term lease with:
Mr/Mrs XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX LTD
UNIT XXXXXXXXX INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SWINDON. WILTS.
SN5 7SW.
From 21­12­2017 to 20­12­2019
Would you please accept this as our representation and contact the fleet manager of the above.
Should you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
Fleet Administration Department
LeasePlan UK Ltd
T: 01753 376429
E: xxxxxxxxxxxx@safogroup.co.uk

My initial thought on this, is that the lease company have representation to the LA advising them that the driver of the vehicle had a lease agreement with them when this was clearly not the case. The leasor was a different company and it was them who would have signed the lease agreement. Secondly, saying the lease agreement with the driver was from 21122017 is also incorrect as the leasor would have made the agreement from that date, and as they use agency drivers for this type of work, any number of people would have driven the vehicle between the dates stated.

I also note the comments made under this previous post at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123757 whereby the member Loucamera makes points in relation to the signage at that location. From the image supplied it looks like the signage has still not been changed and is, therefore, not legally correct in the context for which it is being used.

I would really appreciate anyone's input in relation to this.
Thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Mon, 17 Feb 2020 - 17:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



where is the place of work they were trying to access?

If they exited onto the North Circular Road then they did not access. Otherwise I would say they did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 11:44
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Hi there,

The place of work was Connell Crescent itself, as it was part of a sat nav driving route that was being followed, and was being tested for mobile phone network coverage so had to be driven through. To argue that this should only be done at certain times is questionable, especially given the signage that is in place. These are signs that are normally used in conjunction with additional signage advising ' Except for Access' and for someone unfamiliar with this particular road, would be an easy assumption to make.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 12:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



What the council have to do when dealing with hire/lease co representations is reject them or as in this case and the norm accept them. When they accept they must serve on the hire/lease co a legal notice, a notice of acceptance.

This legal notice allows the council to move on to the next stage, they must cancel the PCN ( because they have accepted the representation) and then they are allowed a further 28 days from the date of notice of acceptance to serve a new PCN.

They have not done this, they have changed the name and address on the original PCN and sent it to you. What you have is a PCN that has been issued twice and that is not allowed in the regulations


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 12:50
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



The restriction sign says 3pm to 7pm and doesn't given any exemptions. Emergency services automatically do get an exemption if on an emergency call and police possibly at any time but otherwise there are no exemptions for access, residents, etc, and everyone has to go the long way around.

I therefore see it hard to find a challenge based on "access".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 18:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



So does that mean by not following correct procedure, the council's position is now in breach of due process, and they have no legal route to take this matter forward?

I have also advised the Lease company that by making a false representation to the Council, they have left themselves open to a call of having made a false declaration which as the PCN states may result in prosecution and a fine upon conviction. I am waiting to hear back from them on this point.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 12:40) *
What the council have to do when dealing with hire/lease co representations is reject them or as in this case and the norm accept them. When they accept they must serve on the hire/lease co a legal notice, a notice of acceptance.

This legal notice allows the council to move on to the next stage, they must cancel the PCN ( because they have accepted the representation) and then they are allowed a further 28 days from the date of notice of acceptance to serve a new PCN.

They have not done this, they have changed the name and address on the original PCN and sent it to you. What you have is a PCN that has been issued twice and that is not allowed in the regulations

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 19:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (WillStitched @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 18:34) *
So does that mean by not following correct procedure, the council's position is now in breach of due process, and they have no legal route to take this matter forward?

I have also advised the Lease company that by making a false representation to the Council, they have left themselves open to a call of having made a false declaration which as the PCN states may result in prosecution and a fine upon conviction. I am waiting to hear back from them on this point.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 12:40) *
What the council have to do when dealing with hire/lease co representations is reject them or as in this case and the norm accept them. When they accept they must serve on the hire/lease co a legal notice, a notice of acceptance.

This legal notice allows the council to move on to the next stage, they must cancel the PCN ( because they have accepted the representation) and then they are allowed a further 28 days from the date of notice of acceptance to serve a new PCN.

They have not done this, they have changed the name and address on the original PCN and sent it to you. What you have is a PCN that has been issued twice and that is not allowed in the regulations



I think you are opening a can of worms there, What details did the lease company have when the lease commenced and if any change where they notified? The council will not accept there process is wrong but an adjudicator should and if they do not follow process then they cannot demand a penalty


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:07
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 12:40) *
What the council have to do when dealing with hire/lease co representations is reject them or as in this case and the norm accept them. When they accept they must serve on the hire/lease co a legal notice, a notice of acceptance.

This legal notice allows the council to move on to the next stage, they must cancel the PCN ( because they have accepted the representation) and then they are allowed a further 28 days from the date of notice of acceptance to serve a new PCN.

They have not done this, they have changed the name and address on the original PCN and sent it to you. What you have is a PCN that has been issued twice and that is not allowed in the regulations


I have asked the lease company if they could let me have a copy of the Council's Notice of acceptance to their representation, and the fact they have not replied, suggests that they have never received one. If that is the case, then my take on this is they have not cancelled the original PCN as you state above. Where does that leave us, as the lease company say they were instructed by the Fleet Manager of the company that was leasing the vehicle from them, to inform the council that our driver was responsible for the vehicle at that time, but they should not have advised the council that our driver had a lease agreement with them as that was clearly untrue. He was informally carrying out some work at their request using their leased vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:18
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59) *
What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


Unfortunately, we are not party to that information, as we are not the leasees of the vehicle. We were only driving it as a favour for the company who are leasing it to carry out some work at their request. The thing that irks is that they are the ones who sent us on the route where this alleged contravention occurred. Funnily enough, the company who are leasing the vehicle, have recently ( in the last month) transferred the lease over to another company who are taking over the use of the vehicles. I don't think this could get any more complex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 21:16
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (WillStitched @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59) *
What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


Unfortunately, we are not party to that information, as we are not the leasees of the vehicle. We were only driving it as a favour for the company who are leasing it to carry out some work at their request.

Right, let's see if I've worked this out:

You are company A, Company B has leased a vehicle.

The Hire Company has a lease agreement signed b company B, but it has told the council that the lease is with Company A.

The Council has now issued a PCN to Company A (i.e. you).

Is this correct?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 21:25
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 20:44) *
OP, pl forget about being directed by sat nav or whatever. Also, pl stop referring to driver.

Both are irrelevant.

To whom is the PCN which you posted addressed? Your employer? Let's call them X.

So, the only question which arises is: was X the owner of the vehicle on the date of the contravention?

This is a legal matter.

How did they obtain the vehicle?

In your first post you stated: They were in a lease vehicle which is leased by O2 and had then been loaned to my employer.

What the hell does 'loaned mean'?

The criteria for ownership are:


(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm[the registered keeper or other 'owner'] under a vehicle hiring agreement; and
(ii)the person hiring it [in this case your company] had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

And the answers are??

Ok, this is why I said it is complex.

The car is owned and registered by the Lease Company. They then lease the vehicle to another company who I shall call the Leasee. The leasee then asks another company to do some work for them, and tells them they can use one of the Leasee's lease vehicles to carry out this work. Because the work is normally carried out by the Leasee using their own staff, there is no formal arrangement in place to cover this scenario, except that if one of the Leasee's own staff incurred this sort of penalty, they would instruct the lease company to make a representation stating that the vehicle was being leased directly to the employee who would then be told it is their responsibility to deal with resolving the situation, ie paying the PCN. In this instance, the representation was made that the vehicle was being leased directly to our driver, which is clearly not true, as he does not even work for the leasee, and I see this as a case of the leasee treating our staff the same as their own. However, as previously mentioned, the lease company have not indicated they received an acknowledgmnt to their representation, and yet the same PCN has been issued for a second time under a different name. Could you please tell me where we stand in relation to the above.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 08:08
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (WillStitched @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59) *
What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


Unfortunately, we are not party to that information, as we are not the leasees of the vehicle. We were only driving it as a favour for the company who are leasing it to carry out some work at their request.

Right, let's see if I've worked this out:

You are company A, Company B has leased a vehicle.

The Hire Company has a lease agreement signed b company B, but it has told the council that the lease is with Company A.

The Council has now issued a PCN to Company A (i.e. you).

Is this correct?


Yes that is correct.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 13:05
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (WillStitched @ Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 08:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (WillStitched @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59) *
What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


Unfortunately, we are not party to that information, as we are not the leasees of the vehicle. We were only driving it as a favour for the company who are leasing it to carry out some work at their request.

Right, let's see if I've worked this out:

You are company A, Company B has leased a vehicle.

The Hire Company has a lease agreement signed b company B, but it has told the council that the lease is with Company A.

The Council has now issued a PCN to Company A (i.e. you).

Is this correct?


Yes that is correct.

but where did the hire co get the details of co A

Now time to be frank why was you co A using a vehicle leased by co B as a favour to them will not wash. Who taxes, insures and maintains the vehicle With a long term lease the concept of ownership could be passed to you by co B if the conditions are right


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 13:29
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,055
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Well said.

OP, what are you trying to get out of this?

Nobody pays the penalty and no-one is pursued further?
You don't pay the penalty to the authority and don't care about the ripple effects, even if these include you having to pay under contractual arrangements and sours relationships between you, B and the lease company whether bilaterally or multi-laterally?

You were not the owner. This much we know from your posts.

The rest is speculation as regards how the PCN came to be addressed to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 19:51
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (WillStitched @ Wed, 26 Feb 2020 - 08:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 21:16) *
QUOTE (WillStitched @ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 08:59) *
What is the term i.e. duration of the lease agreement?


Unfortunately, we are not party to that information, as we are not the leasees of the vehicle. We were only driving it as a favour for the company who are leasing it to carry out some work at their request.

Right, let's see if I've worked this out:

You are company A, Company B has leased a vehicle.

The Hire Company has a lease agreement signed b company B, but it has told the council that the lease is with Company A.

The Council has now issued a PCN to Company A (i.e. you).

Is this correct?


Yes that is correct.

Well then this should be really easy, as liability cannot go from the hire company to Company A if Company A has not signed a hire agreement. However, as PMB rightly says, we need to understand how the hire company got the details for Company A.

But ultimately Company A can challenge the penalty on the basis that it had not hired the vehicle, so the council should have either gone after company B or the hire company.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:47
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here