Car lease company paid private parking company's parking charge & sent me the invoice to pay them.

born_again

I would say that
The BVRLA can confirm that as ACME LTD (renter) are the registered owner and keeper of the rented vehicle the authorities have to contact them regarding offences committed by the driver,

Covers it off nicely. As such they can pay & then chase driver. 

 So how do I tell them to go to court?

You don't that is up to them.

But wonder if they could deduct this (debt) from the the regular payments & put a marker for missed/incomplete payments, thus wrecking your credit history till it's paid to them?
Or even simply declare it as a missed payment & then a default. Again wrecking credit history.

Okell

sjs2013 said:

I've received BVRLA's resolution regarding this complain.

I've raised 4 points in my complaint to them. I've summarised them here:

1. Vagueness in contract terms.

2. Failure of the contract terms to clarify between fines, penalties, invoices etc.

3. Speculative invoice issued by the parking company.

4. The admin fee is unreasonable.

BVRLA conveniently (or incompetently?) ignored first 3 points and addressed the 4th one.

The renter was very quick to ask me to make the payment...

I think it's a pity that you didn't also specifically raise the question of the contract term being an unfair - and therefore both unlawful and unenforceable - contract term under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk).

I commented that you try that approach in my posts at 18:13 and 22:46 on 18 February.

The reason it's unfair - I'd suggest - is that it gives the hire company the power to simply pay the parking "invoice" without first either referring it to you or notifying the parking company that liability should be transferred to you (which is what I thought they were supposed to do).

As such it prevents you from challenging the "invoice" if you have legal grounds to do so, and seems to me to be covered by the example of an unfair term given in para 20 of Schedule 2 of the Act.  (ie it hinders your right to exercise a legal remedy by challenging the parking "invoice" in court).

The fact that you signed a rental agreement containing that term - which is what BVLRA seem to be saying - is completely irrelevant if the term can be deemed unfair under the legislation.

As you've said, BVLRA only really address the question of the validity of the admin charge** in their response, and do not answer the question whether the hire company should be able to pay the "invoice" in the first place and then recharge you without further reference to you.

I don't know if you can take it further with BVLRA.

As regards the parking company your hire company you can either (a) tell them that you won't pay - explaining all the reasons why you think the term is unenforceable including that you believe the recharge term** is unfair under the CRA - and wait for them to sue you or to cancel it, or (b) do nothing and again wait for them to sue you. 

[Edit:  Or, as @born_again has cross-posted with me, you might find that your hire company doesn't take it to court, but takes other action wrecking your credit history.  See what others say... ]

I'm not saying you would necessarily win a court case.  I'm saying that I think you have a reasonable argument that the term** is unfair.  You might win or you might lose.  There is no guarantee what a court would decide.  It's up to you if you want to go down that route or not.

And you might be better off getting this transferred to the parking board...


** For clarifiaction, I'm suggesting that the term is unfair insofar as it allows the hire company to pay the parking "invoice" and then recharge you without reference to you.  The admin charge itself may or may not be unreasonable.

Okell

born_again said:

I would say that
The BVRLA can confirm that as ACME LTD (renter) are the registered owner and keeper of the rented vehicle the authorities have to contact them regarding offences committed by the driver,

Covers it off nicely. As such they can pay & then chase driver...

But surely all that means is that the parking company has no option but to make initial contact with the hire company because the hire company is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.  The parking company simply doesn't have anyone else to contact but the hire company as hire company's is the only name they can discover from DVLA.

But where does that give the hire company the authority to pay the charge without investigating its validity and whether it is legitimate or not?  Surely it either has to be referred to the OP or liability formally transferred to the OP?

Otherwise what is to stop unscrupulous parking companies sending out bogus "invoices" to hire companies safe in the knowledge that they'll just pay up without question?  That's bonkers surely?

born_again said:

... So how do I tell them to go to court?

You don't that is up to them.

But wonder if they could deduct this (debt) from the the regular payments & put a marker for missed/incomplete payments, thus wrecking your credit history till it's paid to them?
Or even simply declare it as a missed payment & then a default. Again wrecking credit history.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the contract term is unfair and therefore both unenforceable and unlawful under the CRA, could the hire company still do that?

Jenni_D

The BVRLA has clear guidelines (known as a Memorandum of Understanding) as to what their members should do in the event of receiving a parking charge notice on behalf of one of their clients ... and these guidelines have been around almost as long as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been around (which came into force on 1st October 2012 ... the MoU came into effect in November 2013*). In a nutshell, the hire company should reply to the parking company with the details of the hirer and a copy of the hire agreement (or pertinent details thereof) - having done that then they have discharged any and all liability for the charge under PoFA 2012, and the parking company must then pursue the hirer - they have no legal remedy to revert to the hire company.

By paying the charge the hire company have accepted liability for the charge ... and as mentioned above, the T&Cs are rarely watertight in allowing them to transfer that liability to the hirer and pursue the hirer for the charge. (The admin fee is a separate matter, but if the basic charge is unenforceable - per @Okell's commentary above - then by default the admin fee becomes unenforceable).

* I have a copy of this. I don't know if there's an updated version.

Okell

Jenni_D said:

The BVRLA has clear guidelines (known as a Memorandum of Understanding) as to what their members should do in the event of receiving a parking charge notice on behalf of one of their clients ... In a nutshell, the hire company should reply to the parking company with the details of the hirer and a copy of the hire agreement (or pertinent details thereof) - having done that then they have discharged any and all liability for the charge under PoFA 2012, and the parking company must then pursue the hirer - they have no legal remedy to revert to the hire company...

I have no specialist knowledge about parking charges but if what you say is correct - and I have absolutely no reason to believe it isn't correct - then that makes perfect sense.

Upon receiving a parking "invoice" from a parking company it makes sense that the hire company should take steps to get liability (if there is any) transferred to the driver - who is the only person in a position to know if the charge is valid or not - and is the person who the parking company should be pursuing directly.  Not indirectly through the hire company.  Any term in the hire contrcat that has the effect of preventing the OP from challenging a parking charge must be unfair under the legislation.

I'm afraid the OP might have restricted their appeal (or complaint or whatever) to BVLRA to too narrow grounds.  They should also have questioned whether the hire company had any grounds at all simply to pay the charge and then pass it on to the OP.  From what you say it sounds as if the hire company are in breach of the MoU with BVLRA.

Should the OP go back to BVLRA and point out that they have ignored their own guidelines/MoU?

Plus of course that it's an unfair term?  (Which I think is the whole basis of any complaint)

Whether the hire company can wreck the the OP's credit history as suggested by @born_again, I don't know.  But if they can, there's definitely something wrong somewhere...

MobileSaver

Jenni_D said:

In your complaint to BVRLA did you refer them to their own guidelines regarding how their members should deal with parking charge notices (invoices)?

As has been pointed out to you before, their own guidelines categorically state that rental and leasing companies can choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer.

Jenni_D said:

 thus a notification is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract not a penalty notice in relation to an offence.

The BVRLA's reply doesn't mention a "penalty notice" so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

MobileSaver

Okell said:

or notifying the parking company that liability should be transferred to you (which is what I thought they were supposed to do).

This is what @Jenni_D keeps telling people but it is simply incorrect - the BVRLA guidelines clearly give their members a choice of EITHER transferring liability OR paying and recharging.

Okell said:

As such it prevents you from challenging the "invoice" if you have legal grounds to do so, and seems to me to be covered by the example of an unfair term given in para 20 of Schedule 2 of the Act.  (ie it hinders your right to exercise a legal remedy by challenging the parking "invoice" in court).

The BVRLA's reply states that the OP can still appeal/challenge the parking charge and so there doesn't seem to be any grounds to challenge on the basis of an unfair term. 

Of course if the OP contacts the parking company and they refuse to consider an appeal then that would be cause for further complaint whereas if the parking company considers the appeal but rejects it then c'est la vie...

MobileSaver

Jenni_D said:

The BVRLA has clear guidelines (known as a Memorandum of Understanding) the MoU came into effect in November 2013* I have a copy of this. I don't know if there's an updated version.

That may be why you keep giving out incorrect information, the latest version I have is "revised May 2017"...

MobileSaver

sjs2013 said:

I've raised 4 points in my complaint to them. I've summarised them here:

1. Vagueness in contract terms.

2. Failure of the contract terms to clarify between fines, penalties, invoices etc.

3. Speculative invoice issued by the parking company.

4. The admin fee is unreasonable.

BVRLA conveniently (or incompetently?) ignored first 3 points

The BVRLA drafted the terms that the lessor used so they probably dismissed the first 3 points as not even worth responding to, hence "assure you that all aspects of your complaint have been fully examined."

Those points may work if you were in court challenging a parking company but you're not. You are challenging a leasing company whose terms say "All charges and legal costs for any ... parking offences ... we will pay and recharge with a reasonable administration fee."

Personally I don't see anything vague or any lack of clarity or what difference a "speculative invoice" makes; you are alleged to have committed a parking offence and consequently a charge has been raised. It's not for the lessor to investigate whether the parking charge was legitimate any more than they would investigate whether the police legitimately towed a car away.

sjs2013 said:

But I'll prefer to go to court & settle it there. So how do I tell them to go to court?

Before that happens you will be expected to have tried to resolve the matter outside of court so the first question may be "what was the outcome of your appeal against the parking charge?"

born_again

Okell said:

born_again said:

I would say that
The BVRLA can confirm that as ACME LTD (renter) are the registered owner and keeper of the rented vehicle the authorities have to contact them regarding offences committed by the driver,

Covers it off nicely. As such they can pay & then chase driver...

But surely all that means is that the parking company has no option but to make initial contact with the hire company because the hire company is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.  The parking company simply doesn't have anyone else to contact but the hire company as hire company's is the only name they can discover from DVLA.

But where does that give the hire company the authority to pay the charge without investigating its validity and whether it is legitimate or not?  Surely it either has to be referred to the OP or liability formally transferred to the OP?

Otherwise what is to stop unscrupulous parking companies sending out bogus "invoices" to hire companies safe in the knowledge that they'll just pay up without question?  That's bonkers surely?

born_again said:

... So how do I tell them to go to court?

You don't that is up to them.

But wonder if they could deduct this (debt) from the the regular payments & put a marker for missed/incomplete payments, thus wrecking your credit history till it's paid to them?
Or even simply declare it as a missed payment & then a default. Again wrecking credit history.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the contract term is unfair and therefore both unenforceable and unlawful under the CRA, could the hire company still do that?

If you check the parking board one thing they point out is that registered keeper does not have to say who was driving.

Clearly the lease co are happy to simply pay & chase.

While not good practise & underhand. Maybe they have got fed up with people simply getting these invoices & using this method to try & make sure that they don't do it again?
End of the day if the person causing the invoice ignores it. Then it is the lease co that ends up with the problem of sorting it out & possible court action.

Not defending their action, just looking at it from the other perspective.