Civil Enforcement Parking Regs - loophole?

[trafalgar]

My daughter parked for too long and received a penalty notice.

She forgot to tell me as I am the owner, so after 28 days I received a "notice to the owner" demanding I pay the full £70.

 

I think that I should be afforded the same rights as the driver who could pay 50% within 14 days (£35)

 

I checked the applicable regs which are currently the "Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General regulations 2007" to see if I could appeal and in particular I was looking for the point at which the owner is notified to make my case.

 

This also meant I had to understand what exactly was meant by "owner" and the regs helpfully define this for you at the beginning as follows.

 

“owner” in relation to a vehicle includes any person who falls to be treated as the owner of the

vehicle by virtue of regulation 5(3);

 

Now it seems to me that this is wrong 5(3) only refers to persons who hire vehicles, it should refer to 5(2) which then includes 5(3) as follows.

 

5(2)

In a case not falling within paragraph (3), the penalty charge shall be payable by the person

who was the owner of the vehicle involved in

the contravention at the material time.

5(3)

Where—

(a) the vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle which was, at the material time, hired from a vehicle-hire firm under a hiring agreement;

 

(b) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any parking contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; and

 

© in response to a notice to owner served on him, the owner of the vehicle made representations on the ground specified regulation 4(4)(d) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations and the enforcement authority accepted those representations,the penalty charge shall be payable by the person by whom the vehicle was hired and that person shall be treated as if he were the owner of the vehicle at the material time for the purposes of these Regulations.

 

Note that the Representations and Appeals regs 4(4)d above also has the same reference back to the general regs 5(3) - and not 5(2).

 

So my question for all the legal eagles is can the charge be applied since my daughter did not hire the vehicle? Also should my rights as the owner afford me the chance to pay 50%?

 

All comments welcome, I'm sure 5(2) still applies and I'm stuffed either way, but it would be interesting to see where my analysis went wrong!

 

I'll clarify my thoughts a little more:

 

With respect to clause 5(2) my daughter nor I fall within 5(3) so the first part is true, however, the second part says that the charge is payable by "the person who was the owner" and "owner" is defined as 5(3) so strictly all applicable owners are persons who only hire vehicles.

 

Crazy, no!

 

I'm sure this will be blown out of the water - but interesting mistake I think!

T

[dx100uk]

Merge and tidy

 

Dx

[BazzaS]

You've misapplied the details.

 

© in response to a notice to owner served on him, the owner of the vehicle made representations on the ground specified regulation 4(4)(d) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations and the enforcement authority accepted those representations,the penalty charge shall be payable by the person by whom the vehicle was hired and that person shall be treated as if he were the owner of the vehicle at the material time for the purposes of these Regulations.

 

So, the hirer gets treated as if they were the owner in some situations, by 5(3)©, with 5(3)(a-b) setting out those situations.

 

“owner” in relation to a vehicle includes any person who falls to be treated as the owner of the vehicle by virtue of regulation 5(3);

 

The problem here with what you are aiming to rely on is that "includes" is additional, so "owner" becomes defined as anyone who is the owner but ALSO hirers in certain circumstances also get treated as "owner".

It doesn't say 'conventional use of "owner" is excluded, which is what you seem to be hoping it says ....

 

So, if 5(3) kicks in, the person responsible is the hirer, not the owner (the hiree). If 5(3) doesn't kick in, then 5(2) applies,

 

5(2)

In a case not falling within paragraph (3), the penalty charge shall be payable by the person who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention at the material time.

 

and the owner is responsible : the 'owner' in the conventional sense, not the 'owner' (who was the hirer) under 5(3).

 

 

 

Did you hire the vehicle to your daughter, as a vehicle-hire firm, under a hire agreement? (If you want to claim this, expect to be asked to prove it, by e.g. business details, invoice, payment, and the relevant insurance ...).

If so, and your daughter signed the statement of liability, use 5(3) to get your firm to pass your daughter's details (and the liability) passed on.

 

If not, you are the owner, and you are liable for payment for a correctly issued ticket.

 

You might informally appeal that it is fair for you to only pay the reduced amount, but bottom line is that they have behaved correctly, and if you lost out on the reduction because your daughter didn't tell you she'd got a ticket, you should be looking to her, not the council ........

[ericsbrother]

5.2 applies EXCEPT where 5.3 applies. You have read it the other way round. As 5.2 is satisfied in all cases the 5.3 becomes a specific clause that allows a hire company to ahve the liability transferred to the proper person if certain conditions are met. It doesnt mean they arent liable at all.

If you pull the pin out of a grenade saying it isnt your grenade wont help you.

[trafalgar]

Thanks all, much appreciated and not surprised.

 

That's why I'm not a lawyer!

 

Cheers,

T