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

Jenni_D

MobileSaver said:

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"...

What does section 4 (BVRLA Members) say in your copy?

Edit: is this what you're referring to? (Pages 9-11 seem relevant).

https://www.bvrla.co.uk/static/uploaded/61b3298b-a918-499b-9ac8b8bea2b726a0.pdf

Ectophile

MobileSaver said:

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?"

What you are missing is that:

• There is no evidence that the OP has committed any offence.  Parking in a private car park, and then being sent a bill, is not an offence.
• Regardless of anything written in the BVRLA's guidelines, which the OP did not sign up to, the OP's contract was badly written and doesn't actually include what happens to parking charges.
  

sheramber

Ectophile said:

MobileSaver said:

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?"

What you are missing is that:

• There is no evidence that the OP has committed any offence.  Parking in a private car park, and then being sent a bill, is not an offence.
• Regardless of anything written in the BVRLA's guidelines, which the OP did not sign up to, the OP's contract was badly written and doesn't actually include what happens to parking charges.
  

According to BVRLA's reply to OP the rental agreement does state  whay happens  to parking charges

Having reviewed your signed rental agreement we can see that on page 3 it states under charges that ‘All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road-traffic, parking offences or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including costs from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away. You will accept that we will pay and recharge with a reasonable administration fee’.

Okell

sheramber said:

Ectophile said:

MobileSaver said:

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?"

What you are missing is that:

• There is no evidence that the OP has committed any offence.  Parking in a private car park, and then being sent a bill, is not an offence.
• Regardless of anything written in the BVRLA's guidelines, which the OP did not sign up to, the OP's contract was badly written and doesn't actually include what happens to parking charges.
  

According to BVRLA's reply to OP the rental agreement does state  whay happens  to parking charges

Having reviewed your signed rental agreement we can see that on page 3 it states under charges that ‘All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road-traffic, parking offences or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including costs from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away. You will accept that we will pay and recharge with a reasonable administration fee’.

If you are saying that the bit that says "All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road-traffic, parking offences or any other offence..." means that private parking charges are included, I think the counter-argument (which some might think excessively legalistic...) is that a simple breach of contract leading to a private parking charge is not a "parking offence", which is something different and is dealt with by local authorities.  (At least that's what I think this argument is.  I prefer an unfair contract term myself.  It's simpler)

Okell

MobileSaver said:

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.

Fair enough.  I'm not in a position to say which of you is correct about that.  But in either case I don't see how it addresses the argument that the underlying contractual term itself could be unfair under the CRA?

In fact if you are saying that hire companies have a discretion as to whether to transfer liability to the OP or simply to pay up without question and recharge the OP, that seems to me to be so arbitrary as to confirm that the term is unfair.

MobileSaver said:

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...

As I said previously I'm no expert on the ins and outs of parking law, but how can BVLRA say that the OP can still appeal or challenge the parking charge?  Surely the payment of the charge by the hire company draws a line under it.  What standing would the OP have to appeal?  The parking company already have their money - why on earth would they entertain an appeal?  The assertion by BVLRA that the OP can still challenge the charge after the hire company has paid it sounds like a hollow one to me.

Do you know that what BVLRA say is correct?

If it is correct, is the only possible remedy the OP has is to sue his hire company on the ground that the term in the hire contract is unfair?

(The only alternative would be to sue the parking company, but I don't understand on what grounds he would do so.)

MobileSaver

Ectophile said:

What you are missing is that:

• There is no evidence that the OP has committed any offence. 
  

How do you know there is no evidence? The OP said a parking charge notice was issued which presumably listed the reg number, date, location and details of the offence, that sounds like evidence to me. The evidence may be flawed but that's for the OP to challenge, not the lessor.

Ectophile said:

• Regardless of anything written in the BVRLA's guidelines, which the OP did not sign up to, the OP's contract was badly written and doesn't actually include what happens to parking charges.
  

The OP signed up to the lease contract which categorically stated "All charges and legal costs for any ... parking offences ... we will pay and recharge with a reasonable administration fee"

Okell

born_again said:

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...

But that advice doesn't apply in a case like this, does it?

The hire company aren't telling the parking company who was driving the vehicle - they're telling them who it was hired to.  Just as when a parking company gets RK details from the DVLA, it doesn't tell them who the driver was.

And in any case, even if the OP was identified by the hire company as the driver, he'd still be able to challenge the charge and he'd be in a better position than he is now where the parking company has simply paid it without question and recharged him.

born_again said:

... 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...

But none of that is relevant is it?  If the underlying term is unfair under the CRA it doesn't matter that the lease company "are happy to simply pay & chase".  Of course they're happy - it makes everything simpler for them, but it doesn't mean it's lawful under the CRA.

In any case - subject to clarification regarding the difference of opinion between @Jenni_D and @MobileSaver - I thought that so long as the hire company followed the correct procedure in transferring liability to their client, then they had no further obligation to the parking company, and so couldn't be pursued any further?

I'm having great difficulty seeing any valid argument that can justify this "we'll simply pay up and recharge the customer rather than going to the trouble of transferring liability properly - it's too much trouble"

Okell

MobileSaver said:

Ectophile said:

What you are missing is that:

• There is no evidence that the OP has committed any offence. 
  

How do you know there is no evidence? The OP said a parking charge notice was issued which presumably listed the reg number, date, location and details of the offence, that sounds like evidence to me. The evidence may be flawed but that's for the OP to challenge, not the lessor.

How does the OP challenge it when the hire company have already paid it and it's done an dusted?  This is why the term is unfair under the CRA.

(Also I think what @Ectophile is saying is that - technically - a breach of private parking T&Cs is not an "offence".  It's simply a breach of contract.  It's not a question of "evidence")

MobileSaver said:

• 
  

The OP signed up to the lease contract which categorically stated "All charges and legal costs for any ... parking offences ... we will pay and recharge with a reasonable administration fee"

Any terms which the OP signed up to - categoric or not - and which are unfair under the CRA are unenforceable against the OP.

I've still not read anything which addresses my argument that the term is unfair.

MobileSaver

Okell said:

In fact if you are saying that hire companies have a discretion as to whether to transfer liability to the OP or simply to pay up without question and recharge the OP, that seems to me to be so arbitrary as to confirm that the term is unfair.

The discretion is in which policy the leasing company decide to implement. In the case of the OP's leasing company they have decided to implement paying and recharging all their customers so I don't see how that would be inherently unfair? (subject to the proviso below)

Okell said:

As I said previously I'm no expert on the ins and outs of parking law, but how can BVLRA say that the OP can still appeal or challenge the parking charge?  Surely the payment of the charge by the hire company draws a line under it.  What standing would the OP have to appeal?  The parking company already have their money - why on earth would they entertain an appeal?  The assertion by BVLRA that the OP can still challenge the charge after the hire company has paid it sounds like a hollow one to me.

I hinted at this in my direct reply to the OP - the BVRLA have stated in their written response that the OP can still appeal but we don't know if the OP has actually done that. We can only assume that this is correct and the BVRLA wouldn't be foolish enough to make such a thing up in writing.

Of course if the OP's appeal is rejected on the basis that the charge has already been paid then that would change everything because as you rightly say that would make the recharge term unfair...

MobileSaver

Okell said:

How does the OP challenge it when the hire company have already paid it and it's done an dusted?  This is why the term is unfair under the CRA.

The BVRLA have written to the OP stating that he can still challenge the charge even though it's been paid and so if they are correct then that's why the term in not unfair.

Okell said:

(Also I think what @Ectophile is saying is that - technically - a breach of private parking T&Cs is not an "offence".  It's simply a breach of contract.  It's not a question of "evidence")

That's semantics and would be a very weak argument in court - as @Undervalued pointed out, the average man in the street fully understands that a sackable "offence" is simply a breach of employment T&Cs.

Okell said:

I've still not read anything which addresses my argument that the term is unfair.

If the OP can still appeal to the parking company and POPLA/IAS regardless of whether the charge has already been paid or not then I don't see that the term is unfair.