Zipcars handling of PCN - advice please

Coupon-mad

But they didn't do either of the stated eventualities here, so they are surely NOT covered to charge your wife after all. They have gone 'off piste' therefore this is not her problem now:


8.4
'Where a violation, incurred during the Member's Reservation Period or after it as a result of failure to adhere to parking regulations, is sent directly to Zipcar, Zipcar will either pay the penalty/fee on behalf of the Member and then add the penalty/fee to the Member's account or Zipcar may, if permitted by the authority issuing the violation, transfer liability for the penalty/fee notice to the Member and the Member will then be wholly responsible for all correspondence with the appropriate authority and any penalties/fees due. Zipcar will always inform a Member which one of these two courses of action it has taken...'

But you said this was what they've gone and done:

paulmu wrote: »

It would appear that today Zipcars have already submitted our appeal to the council, had it rejected and have now submitted our final appeal to the adjudicator without giving us the opportunity collect and collate relevant evidence. I also believe they have requested a postal adjudication when we would have much preferred to have appeared in person.

They took a third course of action, seems clear enough to me they have not followed due process. You can show this to your card provider as your reason for not being liable for a debit by ZipCars over these matters. If ZipCars were going to pay it they should have done so at the discount and so mitigated the loss. They have made a hash of this I reckon.

paulmu

I agree that Zipcars don't even seem to have followed their own procedures, and if she was paying her bills directly we would be seeking to prevent payment and force them to sue us for the money.

I am still intrigued by the length of time that elapsed between the alleged parking offences and my wife being informed of them. Is it normal for a council to take 10 weeks to issue a PCN, or have Zipcars been sitting on it for weeks without informing us?

Unfortunately I believe my wife authorised Croydon Council to take these charges from her wages as part of the agreement she signed. Essentially Croydon Council are responsible for paying the rental costs, and any additional charges are to be deducted from pay. Given the somewhat incestuous relationship between Zipcars and Croydon Council. I don't think there is any way she can challenge this without jeopardising her job.

The council are the main users of these cars and both parties have had a lot of good publicity as a result of the reduction in costs from using them.

I have suggested that she let as many as possible of her colleagues know of the one sided nature of the Zipcars contract and of the terrible reviews on reviewcentre.com. [I'd post a link here but I'm as a new user I am currently not allowed to].

I intend to continue arguing the matter with Zipcars, but we are now resigned to having these bills deducted from my wife's wages, probably next month (just in time for Christmas!). All we can do now is make sure that as many people as possible know about this to prevent them becoming victims also.

Johno100

Yes paulmu, you hadn't to date brought up the 'partnership' (I assume contractual agreement) between Zipcars and Croydon Council.

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2013/7/23/croydon-council-cuts-staff-car-use-in-half-with-zipcar/47780/

It is clear your wife is in a very difficult position because of this but has she considered bringing this general issue to the attention of her union, so it can be addressed but without putting her at the risk of victimisation?

paulmu

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes paulmu, you hadn't to date brought up the 'partnership' (I assume contractual agreement) between Zipcars and Croydon Council.


It is clear your wife is in a very difficult position because of this but has she considered bringing this general issue to the attention of her union, so it can be addressed but without putting her at the risk of victimisation?

Thanks Johno, I hadn't considered getting my wife's union involved. She is a member of GMB and I think it would be an excellent idea for her to seek their support. They may also be able to offer some legal support. However it has to be said that GMB don't have great record in supporting staff at Croydon Council, allowing local union reps to deal with matters which really require specialist support and advice.

Unfortunately she is still terrified of losing her job if she makes a fuss about this, and would prefer to throw in the towel, so I have some persuading to do to get her to pursue this course. She would prefer to accept the loss of the best part of £200 than risk her job. Personally I feel, as a matter of principle, that these charges should be contested. If Croydon Council subsequently victimise her, there are employment tribunals to deal with that situation. For me it is no longer about the money - this situation is quite simply wrong!

It would have been so much simpler and fairer if she had been named as the driver and allowed to fight the penalty charges herself. She would have had the choice of whether to appeal or accept a reduced charge. Even if she lost the appeal she would at least feel that she had had a proper opportunity to present her case. This would have also had the advantage of taking both Zipcars and her employer out of the equation.

Johno100

paulmu wrote: »

It would have been so much simpler and fairer if she had been named as the driver and allowed to fight the penalty charges herself. She would have had the choice of whether to appeal or accept a reduced charge. Even if she lost the appeal she would at least feel that she had had a proper opportunity to present her case. This would have also had the advantage of taking both Zipcars and her employer out of the equation.

It would have been even simpler if the parking attendant had seen that the car was a Zipcar (no doubt with a sticker on the side), that it was parked next to the Zipcar space that was occupied by another Zipcar, put two and two together and not ticketed one of his/her colleagues.