Getaround (P2P) paid for Parking Charge Notice from private parking company

Fruitcake

The question is, are Getaround BVRLA members? I couldn't find them doing a search on the BVRLA website. There are nearly 900 members.

D_P_Dance

Disputes with Hire Companies WRT private parking invoices are far too common.  It is time these companies re-aligned their waterfowl.  

Umkomaas

As Getaround are not hiring out their own cars (just middlemen fixer-uppers) I doubt the BVRLA has a place for them. The OP could contact the BVRLA for a definitive answer. 

downwithpcn

Umkomaas, you are right, previously they confirmed that they are not a member:

"Whilst we acknowledge the BVRLA principles, as we are a car sharing platform we are not accredited members of this organisation. The ticket has been charged to you in line with our terms of service and the details of the rental contract you have agreed with the owner. The charges have been made correctly following this process."

I replied by stating the breach of rental agreement: 

"While it is great that you “acknowledge the BVRLA principles”, but whether GetAround is “not accredited members of this organisation”, the rental agreement signed under S66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991. Let me remind you that the rental agreement stated that I will be liable as the hirer of the named vehicle for any fixed penalty notice, congestion charge, or parking fines. Fixed penalty notices and parking fines under S66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Schedule 6 Road Traffic Act 1991 may only be issued by the police or local authorities, and only London authorities in the latter case."

Basically, their argument is that parking charge notices are valid fines and therefore this ticket correctly charged according to their t&c as well as the rental agreement.

On Monday it will be 14 days after my letter and I'll open a small claim. However, this is my very first time, how much info I should put in the claim? Like a page? A paragraph? 

Half_way

The reason for mentioned the BVLRA stuff is that as a leading trade association they have issued specific guidance on this matter for their members.

 Likewise in the British Parking Associations code of practice there is a section on how parking charge notices are not supposed to be fines or penalty's

As far as i know If a major trade association has a set of guidelines  on something, and that guidance is not in itself unlawful then it can be used against a non member to show that they are being unreasonable

There was also a case held in the House of Lords where the outcome was that private company's can not issue fines or penalty's, i think it was Dunlop Pneumatic tyres vs  New garage limited

There is a huge difference between a State authority issued highly regulated Penalty charge notice , and what came about when un regulated private parking company's arrived on the scene and decided to call a Parking charge notice

On a side note and probably not relevant here, is the whole issue of hire company's paying of anything and everything sent there way and then charging this to the hirer, with a hefty admin fee  which in turn could be  a breach of the Consumer Rights act, especially with some councils  having a ticket first, ask later the motorist can always appeal policy, but that is mostly another kettle of fish that needs to be boiled later

D_P_Dance

Basically, their argument is that parking charge notices are valid fines 

Why not give them the chance to put that to a judge?   Read this,

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

downwithpcn

Just a quick update.

I sent the LBA to Getaround, and they rejected my claim as well as my offer of mediation service. So I opened a case against them on March 30th. The claim is based on the unauthorized charges they made to my card and the breach of contract which didn't include Parking Charges Notices.

Today (April 15th), they again rejected the claim and replied:

2.3. In accordance with our terms of service (“TOS”) accepted by Hirer when he rented the Vehicle, the car owner is responsible for paying any private or paid parking where the vehicle is located at check-in and check- out (art. 6.4.a). Conversely the driver is responsible for paying any private or paid parking during the rental (i.e. from the time he takes possession of it until the time he returns it).

2.4. On December 23, 2020, Mr XXXX (Car Owner) received a parking charge notice of £60 issued by Smart Parking for unauthorised parking on private land on 08/12/2020 between the hours of 15:20:28 and 16:37:17 in XXXXX.

2.5. The Car Owner paid for the parking charge notice and asked for the reimbursement of it via Getaround on January 3, 2021.

2.6. On that day, the Vehicle was under the responsibility of the Hirer. As a consequence, he is liable for the parking charge notice and the administration fees applicable in such a situation (i.e. £35, according to art. 12.5.d of our TOS).

2.7. This is why, in full application of the TOS, Getaround charged Hirer £95 (£60 for the parking charge notice and £35 for the administration fees).

2.8. Hirer never claimed that he wasn’t parked there, nor did he provide proof of having paid the corresponding parking fees. For all these reasons, the amount charged remains due, no refund will be made by Getaround.

A couple of points:

1) The (art. 6.4.a) of TOS they are referring to on 2.3 is basically for "At the end of the Rental", when the car owner needs to provide the hirer/renter with information and instruction on where to park when returning the car at the end of the rental period:

a) Parking: The Car Owner is responsible for finding (and informing the Renter, whether in the Vehicle Listing or by sending him/her a message before the end of the Rental) sufficient possibilities of specific space or location which are either free or private/prepaid by the Car Owner. The Car Owner must truly provide adequate guidance and instructions (rather than only broad requests such as only requiring that the Renter park on a free space or street). The Renter has the obligation to park in such space or location and provided he/she does exactly as asked by the Car Owner, no costs will be incurred by the Renter. (https://drivy-prod-static.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/legal/2021-03-29/EN_TOS_20210329.pdf)

2) They never mentioned anything in regards to the Parking Charge Notice is not covered by their T&C. The terms say charges are applicable when there is a fine or penalty, which Parking Charge Notices are neither.

3) When I asked about why these charges for, they replied it's a Penalty Charge Notice (documented). I believe they made this mistake from right at the beginning.

4) Now they’ve suggested using the free mediation service. It's odd as originally they rejected my offer.

I think they just playing around and I should just proceed with the claim. Let the judge decide. What do you guys think?

SayNoToPCN

1) WEll you can do a reply to defence, if you want, highlighting this. Or you deal with it in the WS. 
Your choice

You could also make it clear that getaround is making up a distinction that does not appear in their actual signed T&C - there is NO mention of private charges in the T&C, just charges issued by p[roper authorities, such as under the Road Traffic Act

2) Yep which you also cover. They dont understand the difference, tough. 
3) Yep, they dont undertstand the difference between a Penalty and an INvoice. Sucks to be them
4) This is courts mediation, you can do soi if you want. Far better as YOU are in charge here. Gives you certainty if you come gto agreement outside of the c ourt. 


Yep, theyre showing they are woefully under advised. 

downwithpcn

Thanks SayNoToPCN, good points. I will certainly reply and add those points to the case.

Do you reckon I should go for court mediation first?

SayNoToPCN

Yes - you want money, so you have the advantage
You can point out to the mediator that the defendant appears not to understand the difference between a parking charge issued by a private company, and a penalty charge or fine issued by an Authority such as the police or a council. their Terms and Condftions, as signed, ONLY cover the latter. If they wanted it to include the former, then they should have written it to do so. 

As such there is no doubt they took money they were not entitled to. As such, they have committed a tort agsainsdt you.