Hire company paid private PCN against their own terms and conditions (ARVAL again!)

Coupon-mad

And the second link, although old, shows how a person can complain and get these waived.

Don't forget the nugget in your case - that CEL can only hold DRIVERS liable so there was never any 'liability' on any company at all. This wasn't their charge because not all PPCs use the POFA wording (CEL do not). This was only ever for you to pay or appeal, no-one else.

DJBenson

Cheers Coupon-mad. Playing the long game now.

I'm not the expert on these things (never had a parking ticket, plenty of speeding tickets though :mad: ) so I'm going to enjoy getting up to speed on parking regulations but there's a few pointers that they are on a hiding to nothing expecting me to pay this one.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Arval have known this for years and often back down. I recall pepipoo threads like this one:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102551

This one about 'Sixt' is legendary:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=62531

Don't forget to ask Arval whether they paid it because they mistakenly thought CEL PCNs could hold a keeper (or owner) liable. CEL cannot hold anyone but the DRIVER liable so this was rather like Arval paying your paper bill for you if the newsagent wrote a letter to Arval having a moan...

C-M, it's great to see you back from the wilderness. :T

Rebecca_a wrote: »

Hey I've just had a six month battle with mine. Go to your bank if the money has been taken.

Indeed, or credit card company. I helped a former colleague beat on of these when Avis paid the PCN. I got him to put the charge into dispute with our corporate credit card provider before going into bat against Avis. I quoted the BVRLA guidelines plus a comment from the head of that organisation saying that private PCNs should be forwarded to the hirer, not paid by the hire company.
Avis apologised, agreed they had denied my colleague the right to appeal, and refunded the money to the corporate credit card.
Unfortunately I have since retired so don't have access to the documentation to use as a reference case.

Rebecca_a

Fruitcake wrote: »

C-M, it's great to see you back from the wilderness. :T



Indeed, or credit card company. I helped a former colleague beat on of these when Avis paid the PCN. I got him to put the charge into dispute with our corporate credit card provider before going into bat against Avis. I quoted the BVRLA guidelines plus a comment from the head of that organisation saying that private PCNs should be forwarded to the hirer, not paid by the hire company.
Avis apologised, agreed they had denied my colleague the right to appeal, and refunded the money to the corporate credit card.
Unfortunately I have since retired so don't have access to the documentation to use as a reference case.

Credit cards have a higher legal status than other cards. Banks first said "you used your pin, not our issue"... Would be interesting to see what a British bank does. Mine took a long time to act.

DJBenson

Can somebody explain the POFA2012 14 day rule for ANPR-issued fines and what impact being a lease vehicle has on those timescales?

It seems like for invoices issued automatically by ANPR (i.e. no ticket left on windscreen) that the company has 14 days in which to locate the driver details and issue the invoice but what about lease drivers? Is this restriction removed altogether? Extended?

DJBenson

Ah I think I have my answer in the form of this case study;

http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/keeper-liability-explained/ wrote:

Case 2. We have a scenario where a rental car has incurred a parking charge and the registered keeper is therefore the car hire company. If keeper liability can be established under POFA, then the car hire company is liable for the parking charge. However, the hire care company ceases to be liable if, within the period of 28 days starting from when the notice to keeper was given, the hire care company provides the parking company with:
a) a statement signed by the car hire firm stating that, at the material time, the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; and
b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. The statement of liability must:
- contain a statement by the hirer that the hirer acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be incurred while the car is hired to the hirer;
- include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential, business or other address) as one at which documents may be given to the hirer;

If the car hire company can provide the above documents, then the hire company ceases to be liable for the charge, and the car park company must now chase the hirer named in the documents.

So there was a 28 day deadline within which the parking company had to identify me as the driver during which time my lease company has stuck its beak in settled my invoice for me.

Received a response from the PPC this morning telling me that they'd considered my appeal but rejected it based upon the fact that I was still in breach of the terms and conditions on site despite having paid for parking (but entering the wrong registration details).

To be honest, it was a half-baked attempt at an appeal because I'm saving my fight for the lease company who I think I have a stronger case against just for essentially interfering in something that had nothing to do with them.

EDIT: FYI ARVAL - PPC's almost ALWAYS reject during their internal appeals process - the PPC rejecting my appeal means nothing to you.

catfunt

DJBenson wrote: »

Ah I think I have my answer in the form of this case study;



So there was a 28 day deadline within which the parking company had to identify me as the driver during which time my lease company has stuck its beak in settled my invoice for me.

Received a response from the PPC this morning telling me that they'd considered my appeal but rejected it based upon the fact that I was still in breach of the terms and conditions on site despite having paid for parking (but entering the wrong registration details).

To be honest, it was a half-baked attempt at an appeal because I'm saving my fight for the lease company who I think I have a stronger case against just for essentially interfering in something that had nothing to do with them.

...and because they already have your (well... Arval's) money and dont want to give it back.

DJBenson

Yeah that too

Redx

DJBenson wrote: »

Can somebody explain the POFA2012 14 day rule for ANPR-issued fines and what impact being a lease vehicle has on those timescales?

It seems like for invoices issued automatically by ANPR (i.e. no ticket left on windscreen) that the company has 14 days in which to locate the driver details and issue the invoice but what about lease drivers? Is this restriction removed altogether? Extended?

edna basher has explained this and I believe the newbies sticky thread covers it with a reference to edna too

DJBenson

Arval have responded (by email) to my letter which I sent to them last week;

Dear <Removed>,

Thank you for your letter which we have received.

The points in my prior correspondence are from our legal team, which is agreed parking charges have been applied correctly.

Whilst it doesn’t specifically state we pay all charges, it is implied that we will pay and recover the money given the wording of the clause. Implied terms can be found very commonly in contracts for example, when a person purchases a cinema ticket they form a contract with the cinema to view a film. It may not say expressly anywhere on the ticket (or other contractual terms referenced) that they must get up and leave their seat and leave the cinema at the end of the film but the term is implied. Likewise if we have a clause saying that when liabilities are incurred relating to our vehicles the customer is responsible and we will charge an administration fee it is implied that we will discharge the liability and invoice the customer for our administration costs.

If you are not happy with this response, you do reserve the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent and free service. You can find useful information on their website http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk.

So they've gone from saying 'your agreement states...' to 'your agreement implies...'.

I take from what they've said that this is their final response and my only recourse is now FOS?