Excel parking unfair fine

Bircho

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hmmm...well obviously you would need to tweak it but it's only a matter of naming the driver and then you are not liable, FULL STOP, AT ALL. It's hardly a big policy change that's needed, and certainly not some punitive rubbish stitching up drivers re a scam fake PCN...so hope your company hasn't misunderstood the legislation and done that.

All it needs is simply to provide the driver's details as per the advice from the Trade Body for Lease Car firms, the BVRLA. LINK:

QUOTE
Protection of Freedoms Act

The Protection of Freedoms Act, has now been approved by Parliament and will ban clamping on private land from 1 October 2012. Successful lobbying by the BVRLA has ensured that vehicle rental and leasing companies will retain the ability to have private parking fines transferred to the customers who incur them. To view an extract of the Act which refers to rental and leasing companies click the link below:

Protection of Freedoms Act

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.

Further information on road traffic offences can be found here.

Contact:

Amanda Brandon, legal and policy executive

Telephone: 01494 545701''

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

QUOTE



So if whether it's a Leased vehicle or a company owned vehicle it's only one standard letter to name the driver & give an address for service of letters, that's the only thing needed. Your involvement ends there.

But if the driver then denies or does not pay, the liability returns to the Registered Keeper which is why the changes are important to policy. Not so much of a tweak as it has include the potential for disicplinary etc. May need to be careful when giving employment advise as the liability is nothing like rental or lease agreements when the vehicle is company owned.

taffy056

Bircho wrote: »

Don't think it is that rare to be honest. Will see lots of it in most employer policies where car parking is provided for staff that is monitored by Private Parking Companies. And it is certainly in most Vehicle Policy documents that I have seen for company drivers. Indeed, we are having to change our policy to take account of Keeper Liability in the new Freedoms Act.

And it what capacity do you see lots of employer policies ? I drive a company vehicle and it most certainly doesn't say that in mine. And more to the point with leased vehicles they don't mention these invoices in their terms and conditions. To be honest I don't think you know what you are talking about in the context of the thread.

taffy056

Bircho wrote: »

But if the driver then denies or does not pay, the liability returns to the Registered Keeper which is why the changes are important to policy. Not so much of a tweak as it has include the potential for disicplinary etc. May need to be careful when giving employment advise as the liability is nothing like rental or lease agreements when the vehicle is company owned.

If disciplinary action follows following on from an alleged third party debt, I think you'll find that would be unfair and could end up in tribunal , it's akin to your employer taking action because you missed a loan payment to a bank. Basically third party disputed alleged debts have nothing to do with your employer.

Bircho

taffy056 wrote: »

And it what capacity do you see lots of employer policies ? I drive a company vehicle and it most certainly doesn't say that in mine. And more to the point with leased vehicles they don't mention these invoices in their terms and conditions. To be honest I don't think you know what you are talking about in the context of the thread.

Running a HR department for several hundred people. If they don't change it ahead of next week, I think you will find that once the company gets caught once your policy may change.

taffy056 wrote: »

If disciplinary action follows following on from an alleged third party debt, I think you'll find that would be unfair and could end up in tribunal , it's akin to your employer taking action because you missed a loan payment to a bank. Basically third party disputed alleged debts have nothing to do with your employer.

Not if the "debt" was accrued using company property and the company becomes liable for that debt if you failed to make payment.

Using your example has nothing to do with this act, but if your position involved you keeping a clean credit record (which many jobs do) then if you missed your loan payment, yes you could potentially be putting yourself at risk of disciplinary action. But again, this would be covered in your company policies.

jkdd77

Bircho wrote: »

But if the driver then denies or does not pay, the liability returns to the Registered Keeper which is why the changes are important to policy. Not so much of a tweak as it has include the potential for disicplinary etc. May need to be careful when giving employment advise as the liability is nothing like rental or lease agreements when the vehicle is company owned.

That's wrong- under Schedule 4 of the POFA the "hirer" is liable regardless of any denial or failure to pay (assuming the charge is otherwise enforceable, which it probably isn't) and the hire firm wholly extinguishes liability by providing hirer details to the PPC within 28 days.

It is also my opinion that any "contractual term" in a contract of employment making the hirer automatically liable for a fake PPC "fine" would be an unfair contract term, and therefore unenforceable, such that any deduction of wages based on it would itself be unlawful.

bazster

Bircho wrote: »

Even if it is explicitly stated in his Contract of Employment?

If what is explicitly stated? This perhaps:

"You (the employee) agree that if anyone presents us (the employer) with any invoice allegedly relating to your use of the vehicle, we will pay it without question and deduct the sum from your wages. We will make no effort whatsoever to establish the authenticity or legitimacy of any such invoice and will give you no opportunity to contest or dispute it."

Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? Do you think it would stand up at an employment tribunal?

taffy056

Bircho wrote: »

Running a HR department for several hundred people. If they don't change it ahead of next week, I think you will find that once the company gets caught once your policy may change.

No it won't as the fleet manager knows exactly what these invoices are.

Bircho wrote: »

Not if the "debt" was accrued using company property and the company becomes liable for that debt if you failed to make payment.

Using your example has nothing to do with this act, but if your position involved you keeping a clean credit record (which many jobs do) then if you missed your loan payment, yes you could potentially be putting yourself at risk of disciplinary action. But again, this would be covered in your company policies.

Tell me how can the company become liable, even under POFA 2012?

I am using that (loan) as an example, what about missing a direct debit on a mobile phone contract, or maybe for a magazine subscription ? it has nothing to do with your employers, these are third party alleged debts and beyond the scope of most companies, the same as the loan missed payment incidentally!

Bircho

jkdd77 wrote: »

That's wrong- under Schedule 4 of the POFA the "hirer" is liable regardless of any denial or failure to pay (assuming the charge is otherwise enforceable, which it probably isn't) and the hire firm wholly extinguishes liability by providing hirer details to the PPC within 28 days.

It is also my opinion that any "contractual term" in a contract of employment making the hirer automatically liable for a fake PPC "fine" would be an unfair contract term, and therefore unenforceable, such that any deduction of wages based on it would itself be unlawful.

Think you missed my point about the vehicle being company owned. It is not "hired" out to an employee.

I would disagree. If the Company becomes liable for a debt due to the actions of the employee, and there is an explicit terms explaining that the company will make a deduction in these circumstances, then it is covered by the Employment Rights Act.

Bircho

taffy056 wrote: »

Tell me how can the company become liable, even under POFA 2012?

Paragraph 5(2)

ManxRed

Bircho wrote: »

But if the driver then denies or does not pay, the liability returns to the Registered Keeper which is why the changes are important to policy.

I think this is the bit where you are not in agreement with the rest of us.

I don't believe the POFA states this anywhere.