PCN - ParkingEye - 14 Minute Stop (Didn't leave car!)

Castle

hardleyouth said:

Also, isn't this just plain wrong?

They (the owner) have paid the requested amount immediately to discharge their liability as they are the owner of the car and not the person using the car at the time it was parked

Paying the invoice does not discharge liability, it accepts it.  To effectively discharge liability she should have forwarded it on to me?

Regardless, what they are saying is irrelevant as the crux of the matter here is that the terms do not permit them to charge me in this instance.  The terms only permit  a charge where an offence occurred, i.e. under law. 

Yes..it's totally wrong.

Only the Driver and possibly the keeper/hirer, (under POFA), had any potential liability; the owner/RK never had a "liability to discharge". They did, as RK, have the responsibility to nominate the keeper/hirer at the time of the parking event; which they failed to do.

hardleyouth

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Umkomaas said:

hardleyouth said:

Also, isn't this just plain wrong?

They (the owner) have paid the requested amount immediately to discharge their liability as they are the owner of the car and not the person using the car at the time it was parked

Paying the invoice does not discharge liability, it accepts it.  To effectively discharge liability she should have forwarded it on to me?

Absolutely spot on.  However, maybe the owner already knew this, but by paying, he might also know that he's in for a £30 bonus - at your expense!

That does have the ring of an unfair contract term, doesn't it.  Essentially Getaround incentivises the car owners to pay parking tickets, rather than letting hirers dispute them.  

 On Unfair Contract Terms - I think it probably applies to the section of the ToS that they are hinging this on:

12.5 Compensations and associated Getaround fees:
 Different types of compensation and fees can be charged against the Renter in case of various behaviors or events. Getaround acts as an intermediary for the payment of compensation fees. Payment of compensation to the Car Owner is subject to the Renter’s prior payment thereof. The Renter is informed that if the Car Owner provides proof of the former’s liability, the Excess, compensations and penalties will be charged directly to any payment method used on Getaround by the Renter. By accepting the Terms, the Renter authorises the payment of such compensation and penalties. Compensations and fees applicable in the frame of Rentals are the following: 

IMO this initial section is too broad and general to pass the reasonableness test and be considered binding.  The latter points that the terms then go on to specify are reasonable but, as discussed, don't apply to this case. 

Redx

I am glad to see you are getting to the crux of the matter in hand and not what happened on the day, your current dispute is the contract law and financial implications and you are rightly concentrating on that aspect

Ralph-y

"Absolutely spot on.  However, maybe the owner already knew this, but by paying, he might also know that he's in for a £30 bonus - at your expense!
That does have the ring of an unfair contract term, doesn't it.  Essentially Getaround incentivises the car owners to pay parking tickets, rather than letting hirers dispute them.  "

I would go further .... any owner/keeper using Getaround would start to see that it in their interest for the hirer/driver to break road traffic rules/ park on private land , as a way of bumping up the £££ they get. 

Why would Getaround want this to stop? 
Why would they tell their customers the correct way to deal with this? 

I don't know how big/popular Getaround are .... but one would presume more of these cases will be forcoming...

Ralph  

nosferatu1001

I would simply tell them that  you disagree, the amount is unauthorised as you did not breach the terms and conditions of rental, and you will be issuing a charge back immediately. 

downwithpcn

Hi guys, I have a similar issue and didn't want to open a new thread since this is relevant to this thread, but please advise if I need to.

Had a hired car from Getaround and parked it outside my building for an hour as I had verbal permission from the concierge. Their parking space runs by Smart Parking and they issued a parking charge notice of £60 to the Owner of the vehicle. The Owner paid the invoice immediately, and Getaround charged my card a total of £95.

I've read their terms and condition as well as the rental agreement I signed with Getaround, and as we all know, it doesn't cover Parking Charge Notice. I've asked for the full refund since it was an unauthorised charge. They never address the issue and keep replying if I had permission then the error is with building management and parking company. I have contacted the management and they replied: 'They are not able to do anything as the charges been paid.' They asked to contact the parking company. I did and they replied: 'As we have received a full payment, the charge has therefore been closed on our system.'

I did request the chargeback from my bank, but they want a written letter from building management staying I had permission to park there for free. This is despite me explaining the charges is unauthorised as such invoice is not covered by their T&C nor the rental agreement. The management will not give me such a letter as the permission was verbal. I also believe they don't want to get involved. My only choice is with car hire company which simply paid this without even reading if it's covered or not, not even mentioning that by paying the made me look like I've accepted the charges in the first place. It's been a month of back and forward emails with the car hire company and they keep saying the error wasn't from their end, and if I have permission then I should get my refund from parking company. What's next? Any advice on LBA? I would also appreciate a draft email to the MP.

Many thanks

DownWithPCN

nosferatu1001

You will need a new thread, as hijacking someone elses thread is a no no.

downwithpcn

Thanks, I thought so. Just opened a new one.