Excel parking unfair fine

Coupon-mad

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.

Think you have read something into the Act that isn't there. The BVRLA advice (although I accept that's aimed at Lease companies) is crystal clear, simply name the driver & their address, end of the firm's involvement. SAME FOR YOUR COMPANY, AS OWNER/KEEPER.

Bircho wrote: »

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 the Company becomes liable for a debt due to the actions of the employee...

It does NOT have the potential for disciplinary action and your company does NOT become liable, so please stop stitching up your employees into a scam you can side-step with ONE LETTER, sent within 28 days. We repeat, you are mis-reading the Act. This is a classic example of why having a company or lease car is a liability when it comes to fake PCNs, because the companies simply do not get it.

Your planned approach actually could leave you liable if you don't bother with the simple 'driver's details' letter within 28 days, you will not have removed your company from the loop at all. Then further down the line if a PPC actually tried Court, you would be having to spend valuable man-hours on replying to letters, maybe defending a Small Claim, reclaiming the money through salary, having an angry employee (rightly so) and maybe disciplinary proceedings and/or a grievance on your hands. All of which can be avoided.

For the sake of your employees - and your company - please address the issue properly from the outset. One template letter is all that's needed.

bazster

ManxRed wrote: »

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.

He is completely misreading Schedule 4 Para 5.2, which is a bit worrying on the part of someone who is supposed to be on top of this stuff for his company. He's not alone though: it appears from the new AOS code of practice that the BPA has similarly misread it.

The paragraph in question does allow the "creditor" to hold the RK liable even if they know who the driver was, if (and only if) they have already started proceedings against the RK (having given the RK the requisite 28 days' notice).

If they find out who the driver was within that 28 days, or before they began proceedings against the RK, then they can't hold the RK liable. There is nothing, but nothing, in there that allows them to hold the RK liable on the grounds that the driver failed or refused to pay.

Quite clearly, the point of para 5.2 is to prevent the scenario where the RK allows the PPC to get to the brink of a court case and then springs the name of the driver on them, thus requiring the PPC to start all over again with the driver (which would've been a neat stunt if the Act didn't expressly prevent it!)

jkdd77

Bircho wrote: »

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.

Even when acting as a RK rather than as a "hire firm", the company will not become liable if they've named the driver to the PPC within 28 days. Even if they have failed to do so (which would be their own fault and not the responsibility of the employee), there would almost certainly still be no enforceable debt to the PPC due to lack of privity of contract and the penal nature of the charge.

Accordingly, since there is no valid debt, the company would not be liable regardless, and there is no legal basis to deduct the non-existent "debt" from the driver's salary.

The_Slithy_Tove

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.

Wrong, so wrong. Once you have provided the driver's details, you have fulfilled any obligation you may have had, and the RK can no longer be held liable.

5(2) only applies if the PPC starts proceedings agains the keeper, which they can't do, as you've supplied the driver's details.

Bircho

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Wrong, so wrong. Once you have provided the driver's details, you have fulfilled any obligation you may have had, and the RK can no longer be held liable.

5(2) only applies if the PPC starts proceedings agains the keeper, which they can't do, as you've supplied the driver's details.

I am sorry if I am wrong. But that is interesting. So, for example, I could effectively name anyone as the driver, even if I knew they were driving or not, and we would no longer be liable?

bazster

Bircho wrote: »

I am sorry if I am wrong. But that is interesting. So, for example, I could effectively name anyone as the driver, even if I knew they were driving or not, and we would no longer be liable?

Of course you would still be liable, lying through your teeth will not get you off the hook. Truthfully naming the driver (or giving him the opportunity to name himself) absolutely will get you off the hook, so long as you do so before they begin proceedings against you.

Honestly, for someone in your position you really need to look into this properly over the next couple of days, and if you can't understand the Act get a decent lawyer to explain it to you. What have you been doing for the past year or two?

Bircho

bazster wrote: »

Of course you would still be liable, lying through your teeth will not get you off the hook. Truthfully naming the driver (or giving him the opportunity to name himself) absolutely will get you off the hook, so long as you do so before they begin proceedings against you.

Honestly, for someone in your position you really need to look into this properly over the next couple of days, and if you can't understand the Act get a decent lawyer to explain it to you. What have you been doing for the past year or two?

Ask me a question on Employment Law .....

Which does take me back to my original statement before I even looked at this change, which was that if there is an explicit statement in the Contract of Employment, or signed policy document or other document, that states the company will deduct any parking charges from the employees salary or wages, then this would be legal.

Let me take an example to explain. If we operated a car park for our staff but they must have a permit and obey other conditions of the car park. The scheme states that if they don't have a permit or do not obey other condtions then they may get a Parking Charge Notice/Invoice or whatever you may wish to call it. We could state that if you don't pay, then we will pay it for you and claim back from your wages. So long as you have signed to accept this, then it is a legal term and we would be entitled to deduct.

You could of course refuse to sign this clause but then we could say it is a condition of your employment and so it goes on.

Half_way

Although it depends on if it's legitimate parking charges, or fake ppc.charges.
If your going to pass on the charge for any parking fee then what's to stop any one from making something up, filling in a v888 form from the dvla and sending the rk a bill?

AlexisV

So you'll know that not every clause is legal and enforceable just because it's in a signed contract?

The issue would probably come down to whether the invoice is enforceable or not. After all, if (for example) Kwik Fit sent an invoice for £200 for work agreed at £100, and the employee told the company it was wrong, could the company ignore him and take the £200?

Coupon-mad

Bircho wrote: »

Ask me a question on Employment Law .....

Which does take me back to my original statement before I even looked at this change, which was that if there is an explicit statement in the Contract of Employment, or signed policy document or other document, that states the company will deduct any parking charges from the employees salary or wages, then this would be legal.

You could of course refuse to sign this clause but then we could say it is a condition of your employment and so it goes on.

Even if an employee had signed it, they could still state that it's an unfair contract clause if you tried to rely upon it a couple of years later.

Why does the firm even have that clause as regards private parking invoices, since they really never were your company's liability and still will not be if you just name the driver each time within 28 days. These are your employees and this is your company liability at stake - and yet you seem keen to take the route that will leave your company exposed to action and your employees exposed to having no choice but to fork out for a scam they could ignore.