Council PCN For Rental Car While I Paid For My Car Instead of Rental |
Council PCN For Rental Car While I Paid For My Car Instead of Rental |
Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 17:04
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
Hi Everyone
Recently I had an accident and my car is in the garage that is just been write-off as not economical to repair. I have courtesy car for last couple of weeks and when i visited my local high street , i paid by mobile app but didn't change the registration number, which was set up with my car. When i came back i got the PCN and i did email council about it but they send out the letter saying onus is on the driver to check all details and ensure payment. My car was in garage and is only been write-off as of today. So can i make successful representation for this PCN? Any advise is much appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 17:04
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 25 Mar 2018 - 20:28
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
Vehicle rental companies are taking the wotsit when an administration fee for a simple task is more than the penalty you could pay for the same event. If the OP
puts up a redacted copy of the rental agreement (only his/her name needs to be redacted) I will tell them if ultimately they should win at the tribunal or not. Councils take no notice of who makes the informal challenge as they have to send the Notice to Owner to the person or body who appears to them to be the Owner of the vehicle so they start with the registered keeper. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sun, 25 Mar 2018 - 20:38
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I don't have the agreement as it was in the car itself and they took the car back and so did the agreement. The courtesy car was through Direct Line and i can probably ask someone from the branch to email the copy if that help? Do i ask enterprise tomorrow to direct the PCN to us as i am confused what should be my next step
thanks |
|
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 - 09:26
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I am still waiting for the agreement as according to them, they haven't yet received from the third party who digitised the copy.
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:31
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
They were not able to provide the agreement as they cannot find one that i sign and the copy i had i left in the car when they took and they seems to have shredded the copy. They have provided the sample agreement that i would have sign and its available here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNPtKo...ndlYjhDUkNjV2xn
Thanks |
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 09:39
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
If they can't find a signed copy in theory they can't transfer liability, but this doesn't stop them paying the penalty themselves and then charging you for the cost.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 - 12:12
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
What I would do is this.
Tell Enterprise I want to challenge the PCN. Let them tell Barnet Council my name & address when they get their Notice to Owner. Receive a Notice to Owner. Challenge it on the grounds there is no right to transfer liability. Await the inevitable Notice of Rejection. Start an Appeal at the tribunal. Win when the rental agreement cannot be produced. The council will just give up at that point or they may Do Not Contest the Appeal. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 21:57
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I received the letter from Enterprise about the PCN and have already deducted £25 from my credit card! The email address they have on the letter is incorrect (email bounce back) and there is no phone contact number on the letter. Please advise, do i contact the branch and ask credit card to cancelled the charges as unauthorised!
I have uploaded the letter here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNPtKo...ndlYjhDUkNjV2xn |
|
|
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 23:06
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I received the letter from Enterprise about the PCN and have already deducted £25 from my credit card! The email address they have on the letter is incorrect (email bounce back) and there is no phone contact number on the letter. Please advise, do i contact the branch and ask credit card to cancelled the charges as unauthorised! I have uploaded the letter here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNPtKo...ndlYjhDUkNjV2xn The letter says quite clearly "Note: The administration fee is NOT part or full payment of the fine. You will need to pay the fine separately" Unfortunately all rental companies have an admin fee to cover their costs in situations such as these. They have to employ staff who spend their day just replying to letters from various authorities (police, councils and so on) naming drivers, and they charge a fee to cover their costs. You contractually agreed to this when you hired the car (If you don't want to agree to this in future, don't hire a car). On the flip side, this confirms they have transferred liability to you so you can except your own Notice to Owner to turn up in the post. Providing the rental agreement cannot be found, it's a virtually certain win at the tribunal. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 23:07 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
Hi guys
I received the notice to owner while i was away on holiday. So not sure if i can challenge this on any other ground than what i already have mentioned earlier. Also the notice to owner spell out the spelling incorrectly for my first name and not sure if that make up any valid ground to appeal. The rental agreement have my spelling wrong and that might be the reason council got it wrong. It is two e instead of just one i e.g. They spell it Reema while it should be Rima Copy here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNPtKo...ndlYjhDUkNjV2xn Also received the copy of the agreement from enterprise earlier last month when i was on holiday. https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM4a7q...otxqHAwQN16VU2h All docs available here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNPtKo...ndlYjhDUkNjV2xn |
|
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 13:50
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I think explaining the circumstances and asking the council to exercise discretion to cancel is your only option at this point.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 13:53
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I assume name spell incorrectly wont make any legal grounds to challenge?
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 18:13
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
The following is part of the consolidated decision at Connell Crescent, where I mostly lost, but won on the rental agreement point for Aram. Case 2160152394
28. Arman Denli v. The London Borough of Ealing 28.1 Mr Denli did not attend but was represented by Mr Dishman. 28.2 The Council’s case is that Mr Denli’s vehicle drove into Connell Crescent at 1609 on 14 December 2015. 28.3 I have viewed the CCTV footage and this shows Mr Denli’s vehicle driving through the restriction on this occasion. 28.4 The Council serve the penalty charge notice on the registered keeper, Erac UK Ltd, having ascertained their identity from the DVLA. By a letter dated 4 January 2016, Enterprise Rent a Car, the trading name of Erac UK Ltd, confirmed that the vehicle was on hire to Mr Denli. They supplied a copy of their hire agreement. By letter dated 26 January 2016, the Council confirmed to Erac UK Ltd that they had transferred liability to Mr Denli. The Council sent him a penalty charge notice dated 21 January 2016. 28.5 Mr Dishman contended that the Council had no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply will the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, he stated that the hire agreement did not contain details of the make and model of the vehicle hired. 28.6 In their case summary, the Council asserted "[a]lthough Schedule 2 The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000 sets out requirements in a hire agreement, it only states "required" rather than "must have". They accepted that the make of the vehicle was not recorded in the hire agreement, but asserted that the hire agreement was "substantially compliant with the regulations and therefore should be considered valid". 28.7 I find no difference between "required" and "must have". The requirements of the regulations are strict and it is a required particular that the hire agreement contains the make and model of the vehicle. The hire agreement supplied does not contain this required particular and I find it is not compliant (substantially or strictly) with the regulations. Mr Dishman referred to a decision I made in Leonidou v. The London Borough of Barnet (case reference 216002809A). 28.8 I am persuaded to follow the approach I took in that case and am satisfied that liability should not have been transferred to the Appellant and the appeal is allowed on that basis. I would add that had liability been correctly transferred to the hirer I would have refused the appeal for the reasons set out above in relation to the signage. 28.9 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with the direction to cancel the notice to owner. I do not see the make of vehicle on your agreement so that is the basis of your representation. The council do not have the write to transfer liability as the make fo vehicle is not shown in the hire agreement. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 18:49
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
Hello @MrMustard
Oh great work, Does it mean i represent by appealing the case online and reference the above wording in 28.5 and mentioned the case 2160152394 and 216002809A, something like below? I content the PCN as Council have no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply will the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, I state that the hire agreement did not contain details of the make and model of the vehicle hired. I base this on Case 2160152394 and 216002809A, which are similar and the notice to owner was cancel and directed to the rental company. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 19:27
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
The following is part of the consolidated decision at Connell Crescent, where I mostly lost, but won on the rental agreement point for Aram. Case 2160152394 28. Arman Denli v. The London Borough of Ealing 28.1 Mr Denli did not attend but was represented by Mr Dishman. 28.2 The Council’s case is that Mr Denli’s vehicle drove into Connell Crescent at 1609 on 14 December 2015. 28.3 I have viewed the CCTV footage and this shows Mr Denli’s vehicle driving through the restriction on this occasion. 28.4 The Council serve the penalty charge notice on the registered keeper, Erac UK Ltd, having ascertained their identity from the DVLA. By a letter dated 4 January 2016, Enterprise Rent a Car, the trading name of Erac UK Ltd, confirmed that the vehicle was on hire to Mr Denli. They supplied a copy of their hire agreement. By letter dated 26 January 2016, the Council confirmed to Erac UK Ltd that they had transferred liability to Mr Denli. The Council sent him a penalty charge notice dated 21 January 2016. 28.5 Mr Dishman contended that the Council had no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply will the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, he stated that the hire agreement did not contain details of the make and model of the vehicle hired. 28.6 In their case summary, the Council asserted "[a]lthough Schedule 2 The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000 sets out requirements in a hire agreement, it only states "required" rather than "must have". They accepted that the make of the vehicle was not recorded in the hire agreement, but asserted that the hire agreement was "substantially compliant with the regulations and therefore should be considered valid". 28.7 I find no difference between "required" and "must have". The requirements of the regulations are strict and it is a required particular that the hire agreement contains the make and model of the vehicle. The hire agreement supplied does not contain this required particular and I find it is not compliant (substantially or strictly) with the regulations. Mr Dishman referred to a decision I made in Leonidou v. The London Borough of Barnet (case reference 216002809A). 28.8 I am persuaded to follow the approach I took in that case and am satisfied that liability should not have been transferred to the Appellant and the appeal is allowed on that basis. I would add that had liability been correctly transferred to the hirer I would have refused the appeal for the reasons set out above in relation to the signage. 28.9 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with the direction to cancel the notice to owner. I do not see the make of vehicle on your agreement so that is the basis of your representation. The council do not have the write to transfer liability as the make fo vehicle is not shown in the hire agreement. Hello again sorry to chase but am i right with my last comment and just content based on what @MrMustard mentioned in his last post. I am almost late as notice came while i was on holiday. So please please help me out. Thanks again everyone.. |
|
|
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 19:46
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
I wouldn't quote from other tribunal cases as they are not precedents, only persuasive.
Just use most of what you wrote before, as amended by me here: I contest the PCN as the Council have no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, the hire agreement did not contain the make of the vehicle hired. -------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:35
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I wouldn't quote from other tribunal cases as they are not precedents, only persuasive. Just use most of what you wrote before, as amended by me here: I contest the PCN as the Council have no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, the hire agreement did not contain the make of the vehicle hired. Thanks I have email online as suggested by you. Thanks |
|
|
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 21:07
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 3 May 2013 Member No.: 61,605 |
I wouldn't quote from other tribunal cases as they are not precedents, only persuasive. Just use most of what you wrote before, as amended by me here: I contest the PCN as the Council have no right to transfer liability to the hirer in this case because the hire agreement provided did not comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000. In particular, the hire agreement did not contain the make of the vehicle hired. Thanks I have email online as suggested by you. Thanks Hey All and specially @Mr Mustard, PCN cancelled based on the evidence before them. Thanks a lot, one down and still one more to go |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:09 |