Hire Agreement Car.
(REFUSED)
The appellant does not dispute the
circumstances of the PCN being issued but states by
letter that the vehicle was hired under a hire
agreement. Roads Service responded by letter stating
that the appellant had failed to provide the statement
of liability or hire agreement signed by the hirer. This
information is required by Article 10(4) of The Traffic
Management (NI) Order 2005 (“The 2005 Order”) if the
ground of appeal under Article 9(2) (d) is to be relied
on, namely that the vehicle was hired under a hire
agreement.
Article 2 of The 2005 Order states that
“hire agreement” is as defined in Article 71(8) of the
Road Traffic Offenders (NI) Order 1996 which refers only
to agreements as may be prescribed and the fact that the
hirer is a vehicle-hire firm.
No statement of liability or hire
agreement was provided by the hirer and therefore a
formal notice of rejection was issued by Roads Service.
By notice of appeal the appellant re-iterated that the
vehicle was hired to the named individual but again
failed to provide a copy of the hire agreement or
statement of liability. As the appellant has not
responded it is not possible to ascertain the type of
hiring agreement and as no statement of liability has
been forwarded it is not possible to establish if the
person named as having hired the vehicle has accepted
responsibility for PCN’s being issued.
Whilst the hire agreement started prior to
the commencement of the 2005 Order which came into force
on 30th October 2006 by virtue of Article 2 of The
Traffic Management (205 Order) (Commencement) Order
(Northern Ireland) 2006 the need for a statement of
liability in respect of parking offences relating to
hired vehicles under the previous parking penalty system
was also a requirement as set out in Article 71 of the
Road Traffic Offenders (NI) Order 1996. I also consider
that as the 2005 Order was in place for nearly a year by
the time of the offence that the appellant has had ample
time to amend its hiring agreements with its customers.
As the appellant has failed to provide the
necessary documentation to establish the ground under
Article 9(2) (d) of the 2005 Order as required by
Article 10(4) I have no alternative but to refuse the
appeal.
|