PCS car parking charge - company car

Coupon-mad

No, it was the NTK (from PCS) I think. We've seen this before from PCS who do the back office 'work' for some PPCs.

pappa_golf

YES ! and when acting as debt collectors the BPA accept the inflated fee , however acting as their back office/agent its a strict "no no" , but the bpa do not care ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

DCodd

opethpoppy wrote: »

Thanks everyone, really helpful.

I may have to post this on the employment thread but have you any idea if a company can put a clause in an employment contract stating they will pay PPC invoices and deduct from salary thus taking away your right to appeal? I have read the fleet news article and car park Cowboys but can't see anything about this.

Technically they can put a clause like that in your contract, you have the right to refuse to sign it though especially as it would be a change of your current contractual terms (it gets complicated after that though).


A reasoned argument against such a clause being added should deter the company from doing so i.e. that all they have to do is name the driver which would be a cheaper option for the company and would be a better solution for the business.


Lawful deductions from wages acas point of view.
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4125

bod1467

My company's Car Policy also includes a clause about deductions for fines and penalties ... I've already made it perfectly clear to them that invoices from PPCs fall into none of the stated categories, so if it should ever happen to me and they try to follow that procedure then they'll be receiving a formal grievance claim.

Castle

DCodd wrote: »

A reasoned argument against such a clause being added should deter the company from doing so i.e. that all they have to do is name the driver which would be a cheaper option for the company and would be a better solution for the business.

Actually the company couldn't name the driver, but they could name the keeper.

Of course the best answer would be for the company to write back as "Hirer" and inform the PPC that they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA for a compliant "Notice to Hirer".

DCodd

Castle wrote: »

Actually the company couldn't name the driver, but they could name the keeper.

Of course the best answer would be for the company to write back as "Hirer" and inform the PPC that they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA for a complaint "Notice to Hirer".

Why could they not name the driver?

bod1467

Because the person to whom a company car is assigned may not have been the driver at the time of the alleged event. In almost all cases a company car can be driven by any employee or nominated persons (e.g. my wife is allowed to drive mine), therefore the company cannot categorically state that the assigned person was the driver - at most they can identify that person as the usual keeper.

DCodd

bod1467 wrote: »

Because the person to whom a company car is assigned may not have been the driver at the time of the alleged event. In almost all cases a company car can be driven by any employee or nominated persons (e.g. my wife is allowed to drive mine), therefore the company cannot categorically state that the assigned person was the driver - at most they can identify that person as the usual keeper.

Ah OK, with the companies I have worked for, we have always laid out in specific terms who can drive the vehicle. If someone else drives it without informing us it is regarded as taking without authority. However, in this type of case we would contact the driver and ask.

I would always contest PPC tickets though and for us it is quite straight forward for most of the time as we have written instructions to attend site from the land owner / managing agent.


Edit to ask - If they didn't know the driver how could they know who to make the deduction from wages from?

Castle

DCodd wrote: »

Edit to ask - If they didn't know the driver how could they know who to make the deduction from wages from?

They took the deduction from the employee to whom the car had been assigned. Most employment contracts have clauses in respect of penalties/fines, but of course this doesn't cover private land tickets.

DCodd

Castle wrote: »

They took the deduction from the employee to whom the car had been assigned. Most employment contracts have clauses in respect of penalties/fines, but of course this doesn't cover private land tickets.

That is my point. They can only take a deduction from the driver. They have to be certain that the person they have made the deduction from is the person liable otherwise it is an unlawful deduction from wages.