London Congestion Charge – an Olympic sized problem for hire firms


We are shortly to appeal Transport For London's decision not to allow our client to transfer liability onto the errant driver.

Author: Dennis Chapman
Reading time: 1 minute

This article is 8 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

When a company hires out a car, the hirer should sign to say that they accept parking, speeding and the London Congestion charges.  But that may not be enough! 

We are shortly to appeal Transport For London’s decision not to allow our client to transfer liability onto the errant driver on the grounds that:

a) The actual times (and not just the dates) of the vehicle going out and coming back were not recorded on the documentation, even though all contraventions fell between those dates, rendering the time irrelevant and;

b) Because, they say,   there was no actual return date stated when the car was hired out (it was hired for the time it took to repair the customer’s vehicle).  They say this meant it was an ‘open ended’ agreement whereas in order to comply with the laws about transferring liability onto the hirer, there had to be a return date stipulated that had to be a date less than 6 months from the date (and presumably time!) that the vehicle was hired out.

We will let you know of how we get on with the appeal.

Dennis Chapman

In remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.