Example Cases

The law relating to short-term and long-term hiring arrangements is far from straightforward and frequently misunderstood, even by large, commercial hire or leasing organisations.

Deficient hirer details (OX 844)
A vehicle-hire firm received an NTO following a PCN issued to a car in their fleet. The vehicle-hire firm contested liability and appealed against the penalty, claiming that the hirer had signed an agreement assuming liability for any penalties incurred. The Adjudicator held that the address supplied by the hirer was, quite obviously, not his home address, which meant that the particulars about the hirer, as specified in section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, were therefore deficient and the agreement was invalid.
The appeal was dismissed.

Transferring liability to "fixed penalty offences" (WT577)
A vehicle rental firm, on receiving an NTO for a parking contravention that had occurred while one of their vehicles was hired out, appealed on the ground that the hirer had signed an agreement to the effect that he would be responsible for paying any fines incurred during the period of hire. The firm submitted in evidence a copy of the rental agreement. The Adjudicator found that the wording of the relevant clause in the rental agreement, which the hirer had indeed initialled, referred to "fixed penalty offences". He explained that the law was explicit in stating that, in order for liability to be transferred to the hirer, the statement in a hire agreement accepting liability must refer specifically to Penalty Charge Notices.
The appeal was dismissed.

Ownership of a non-vehicle-hire car (SL 615)
A car belonging to a taxi firm was rented to a driver by the week for a period of some 16 weeks. No written agreement existed and there was no question of this being a vehicle-hire agreement. The vehicle was issued with a PCN and the NTO was sent to the taxi firm, who appealed against the penalty and attempted to deflect liability to the driver. However, the Adjudicator held that the taxi firm was the owner of the vehicle, because the weekly rental agreement was not a disposal of keepership with a degree of permanence such as required notification to the DVLA.
The appeal was dismissed.