Lease car - "parking charge" invoice

jiggy2

taffy056 wrote: »

Obviously you need to tread carefully with this, that is why trying to get your company onside could be a thing to do, print out the fleetnews article in my first post and take whatever bvrla info you have. And sit down with the fleet manager and show him this.

The argument though is with the lease company specifically they are acting beyond their legal rights, and you would need to take as much action as possible there. Can I ask is the vehicle lease in your name on behalf of your company ?

Agreed. (However sitting down with the fleet manager might be difficult - as they are going to be based in a different office - but it is probably the most effective way to do it).

It is like a salary sacrifice scheme - so the car will by in the company name with me as a nominated driver (I am free to use the car as i wish and am tied in for a 3 year term).

Buzby

Whilst I sympathise - having been in a similar situation, and local to the leasing firm, had an insight into their actions. Firstly, irrespective of the legality of the 'ticket' the firm is in no position to arbitrate (or 'know better') they have received a demand for payment, and contract law covers that they will take the action to head off ongoing litigation - in other words it's in the lease that they will pay and the hirer will be invoiced.

Since this is an additional service, they will make a reasonable charge fore processing the paperwork and/or paying. Even if they took the unusual step of identifying which tickets were kosher, and which were simply invoices, even a refusal requires their time and effort, so a £30 charge is not unreasonable.

In cases where the RK is genuinely liable, then it is a slam-dunk. It would be up to the lessee or driver to attempt to get the money back (minus the costs billed by the leasing company). This is no different to anyone using a conventional hire car, so hoping for some way of showing the invoice is bogus and disputed will not be of any interest to the Registered Keeper, the administration will take its usual course.

The staff member I spoke to also said they do not have the expertise to adjudicate those matters, and it would be unreasonable for any hirer to expect them to (on the basis that a refusal to pay could make the situation considerably worse) - their principal goal is to ensure their asset is protected at all times.

bazster

Buzby wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise - having been in a similar situation, and local to the leasing firm, had an insight into their actions. Firstly, irrespective of the legality of the 'ticket' the firm is in no position to arbitrate (or 'know better') they have received a demand for payment, and contract law covers that they will take the action to head off ongoing litigation - in other words it's in the lease that they will pay and the hirer will be invoiced.

No it isn't. The lease says they will pay with respect to fines, penalties and offences. This is none of those things. They both wrote and signed the contract, so they need to understand what it says and what it doesn't.

taffy056

Buzby,

Yes you are right its not the lease company position to arbitrate. But it is their position to act within their own terms and conditions, clearly this is not a fine or penalty, they undoubtedly know this as they must have had many of these invoices.

They by paying this invoice are going against their own trade body's advice on private parking invoices, the advice has been given to every lease company through their trade releases. And I would say its their job to know the difference between a penalty charge notice and an invoice from a parking company, one is issued under the road traffic act, the other is not!

As for the £30 admin charge for a private invoice, this is not in their terms and conditions, so its very unreasonable, as its not covered under their terms. Give you an example, you sign a a mobile phone contract, they suddenly give you a charge of £30 for ringing a different network, would you accept that?

Only the driver is liable for this alleged breach of terms, only the driver can handle this, by taking it out of their hands it means that the driver has no opportunity to appeal or ignore this invoice, there is no liability with the RK at all unless he/she was driving, but the lease company know this, and they are just charging it as its an extra income stream for them.

Coupon-mad

Buzby wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise - having been in a similar situation, and local to the leasing firm, had an insight into their actions. Firstly, irrespective of the legality of the 'ticket' the firm is in no position to arbitrate (or 'know better') they have received a demand for payment, and contract law covers that they will take the action to head off ongoing litigation - in other words it's in the lease that they will pay and the hirer will be invoiced.

Is the wrong answer. Read the t&cs again. This private allegation of breach of contract (against an individual, personally) is NOT in the lease agreement.

If what you say is true then anyone could send any invoice on any headed notepaper, quoting one of their lease car VRMs and demanding £75 or so. Easy money and fairly tempting for any dodgy characters with a colour printer. Fraud yes, but any different? No.

The_Slithy_Tove

Incorrect, on several accounts:

Buzby wrote: »

Firstly, irrespective of the legality of the 'ticket' the firm is in no position to arbitrate (or 'know better') they have received a demand for payment, and contract law covers that they will take the action to head off ongoing litigation - in other words it's in the lease that they will pay and the hirer will be invoiced.

Only if the invoice is legitimate, which it isn't. There is no contract between the PPC and the lease company. The request for money is (or should be) from the driver. The lease company is no part of it. Therefore they have no liability, and so do not need to head off litigation.

Buzby wrote: »

Since this is an additional service, they will make a reasonable charge fore processing the paperwork and/or paying. Even if they took the unusual step of identifying which tickets were kosher, and which were simply invoices, even a refusal requires their time and effort, so a £30 charge is not unreasonable.

Admin is part of doing business. Especially as the driver does not necessarily have sufficient control over what unenforceable invoices will get sent out for their car. We know how the PPCs operate, and "reasonable" is not in the description.

Buzby wrote: »

In cases where the RK is genuinely liable, then it is a slam-dunk. It would be up to the lessee or driver to attempt to get the money back (minus the costs billed by the leasing company). This is no different to anyone using a conventional hire car, so hoping for some way of showing the invoice is bogus and disputed will not be of any interest to the Registered Keeper, the administration will take its usual course.

That's completely bogus. Both the lease company, and hire companies, are acting outside their own Ts&Cs, and you expect the driver to have to reclaim falsely deducted sums of money back? Which, of course, increases the lease/hire companies admin costs, as well as unnecessary hassle for the driver, through no fault of theirs.

This is another case (like with council tickets) that if those large, faceless bodies actually had to pay up hard cash for the aggro they cause in false ticketing, maybe they would be a bit more diligent in the way they operate.

Buzby wrote: »

The staff member I spoke to also said they do not have the expertise to adjudicate those matters, and it would be unreasonable for any hirer to expect them to (on the basis that a refusal to pay could make the situation considerably worse) - their principal goal is to ensure their asset is protected at all times.

No "asset" as you put it is in need of protection. If they think it is, then they definitely need to educate themselves - after all, it's part of their job to understand.

jiggy2

Just an update:

Spoke to the Fleet Manager today. The deduction has been suspended whilst the Fleet Manager consults internally (as it was acknlowleged that I have raised some valid points about the contract).

The Fleet Manager also mentioned that they would be considering putting a process in place whereby the lease company either pass on the private parking company invoices to the lessees or uses the BVLRA letter. (Manager mentioned that CP Plus has several large clients etc - and I didn't dispute that - but if it comes down it is easily arguable that is not the point being argued - it is whether the lease company is acting within its own T&C).

More postivie than I thought - it maybe that in two weeks time they turn around and say that they still think I need to pay. But for the time being it is not payable so I just need to wait and see.

Thanks for everyone's help

Coupon-mad

The lease company and your Fleet Manager should be told that while they are discussing plans for the future, they need to know the law is changing.

To completely and very easily absolve their possible liability after the Freedoms Act comes in 2 weeks time on 1st October, all they need do is reply to any ticket and say who was driving. Same as with a Council ticket, where there's an option to say 'we are a lease/hire co. and on that date the vehicle was leased/hired to 'jiggy2' who can be contacted at this address (your house or your company).'

That's all they will need to do and they will then have ZERO liability. See here, email them this new BVRLA link.

''The BVRLA will now be working with the British Parking Association to ensure that customers' details can be passed to private parking firms in a simple way, without the need for complex evidential requirements such as copies of rental and lease agreements.''

Contact:

Amanda Brandon, legal and policy executive

Telephone: 01494 545701

Email: [EMAIL="amanda@bvrla.co.uk"]amanda@bvrla.co.uk[/EMAIL]

The lease company should be able to ask her for help if they are members.

jiggy2

Buzby wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise - having been in a similar situation, and local to the leasing firm, had an insight into their actions. Firstly, irrespective of the legality of the 'ticket' the firm is in no position to arbitrate (or 'know better') they have received a demand for payment, and contract law covers that they will take the action to head off ongoing litigation - in other words it's in the lease that they will pay and the hirer will be invoiced.

Since this is an additional service, they will make a reasonable charge fore processing the paperwork and/or paying. Even if they took the unusual step of identifying which tickets were kosher, and which were simply invoices, even a refusal requires their time and effort, so a £30 charge is not unreasonable.

In cases where the RK is genuinely liable, then it is a slam-dunk. It would be up to the lessee or driver to attempt to get the money back (minus the costs billed by the leasing company). This is no different to anyone using a conventional hire car, so hoping for some way of showing the invoice is bogus and disputed will not be of any interest to the Registered Keeper, the administration will take its usual course.

The staff member I spoke to also said they do not have the expertise to adjudicate those matters, and it would be unreasonable for any hirer to expect them to (on the basis that a refusal to pay could make the situation considerably worse) - their principal goal is to ensure their asset is protected at all times.

I think the points you have raised have been answered by several other posters - but the reason I have thanked your post is because (you have taken the time to post) and it shows what the lease company will tell you. So hopefully when other posters see the arguments the lease companies use and why they are not valid, it will be helpful in their circumstances.

jiggy2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The lease company and your Fleet Manager should be told that while they are discussing plans for the future, they need to know the law is changing.

To completely and very easily absolve their possible liability after the Freedoms Act comes in 2 weeks time on 1st October, all they need do is reply to any ticket and say who was driving. Same as with a Council ticket, where there's an option to say 'we are a lease/hire co. and on that date the vehicle was leased/hired to 'jiggy2' who can be contacted at this address (your house or your company).'

That's all they will need to do and they will then have ZERO liability. See here, email them this new BVRLA link.

''The BVRLA will now be working with the British Parking Association to ensure that customers' details can be passed to private parking firms in a simple way, without the need for complex evidential requirements such as copies of rental and lease agreements.''

Contact:

Amanda Brandon, legal and policy executive

Telephone: 01494 545701

Email: [EMAIL="amanda@bvrla.co.uk"]amanda@bvrla.co.uk[/EMAIL]

The lease company should be able to ask her for help if they are members.

Excellent - this is very useful and I will send this through to the Fleet Manager.