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

Jenni_D

#tenuous 🙄

I'm out - I can't add anything further. The hire company are wrong, but believe they can get away with it because their trade organisation has included a one-liner to let them do what they're doing. (Unfortunately their T&Cs are not sufficiently well written to support that belief).

And a final musing on the offence observation and the T&Cs  ... Contra Proferentem / Man on the Clapham Omnibus.

nopcns

One last attempt... a Parking Charge Notice, from an unregulated private parking company, cannot be issued for a parking "offence". It can only be issued for an alleged breach of contract under civil law. The difference is that there is no "offence" being committed in civil law. An "offence" can only be committed under criminal law, even if the offence itself has been 'decriminalised'.

In England, private companies cannot issue fines or impose penalties for alleged breaches of contract. Fines and penalties fall within the purview of the police, public authorities or regulatory bodies empowered by law to enforce such penalties for "offences" under criminal law.

In legal terms, an "offence" refers to a violation of law or a breach of a regulation. An alleged breach of contract, especially for parking on private land, cannot ever be a "parking offence".

The OP showed us the contractual term in the lease agreement:

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.

Nowhere in that term is there any mention of an invoice from a private parking company for an alleged (or otherwise) breach of contract in civil law. If the lease company wanted to hold the lessee liable for parking charges from private companies, then it should have made provision for such in its contract. It didn't.

The OP has a few choices:

1. Sue the lease company through MCOL for breach of contract as already advised.
2. Raise a dispute with the bank over the payment and wait and see if the lease company tries to sue for the money.
3. Accept that the money is gone and put it down to experience.

MobileSaver

nopcns said:

One last attempt... The difference is that there is no "offence" being committed in civil law. An "offence" can only be committed under criminal law.

So you keep saying but without providing any evidence to backup your statement!

Please can you reference the legislation that confirms an "offence" can only be committed under criminal law bearing in mind that @Jenni_D has already provided an impartial reputable source that clearly states a breach of a rule is an "offence" regardless of whether criminality or a statutory authority is involved or not...

If an "offence" can only be committed under criminal law then which criminal law is broken for the sackable offence of drinking on the job?

nopcns

Sackable breach of employment contract. 

I'm not on trial. I don't have to "evidence" anything. I asked a district judge. He told me that, if he was looking at a claim, that term in the lease contract doesn't cover private parking charges. For me... end of.

This is descending into an argument about semantics. The objective here is to assist the OP to get their money back. That has been advised so I will bow out of any competition to try and prove who is correct or not.

born_again

nopcns said:

The OP has a few choices:

1. Sue the lease company through MCOL for breach of contract as already advised.
2. Raise a dispute with the bank over the payment and wait and see if the lease company tries to sue for the money.
3. Accept that the money is gone and put it down to experience.

If the OP is paying by DD then there is no option, so long as they advise OP of the amount being taken.

Even if the Lease co wants payment via debit/credit card there is no dispute that would cover it.

Coupon-mad

MobileSaver said:

nopcns said:

One last attempt... The difference is that there is no "offence" being committed in civil law. An "offence" can only be committed under criminal law.

So you keep saying but without providing any evidence to backup your statement!

Please can you reference the legislation that confirms an "offence" can only be committed under criminal law bearing in mind that @Jenni_D has already provided an impartial reputable source that clearly states a breach of a rule is an "offence" regardless of whether criminality or a statutory authority is involved or not...

This 2019 legislation requires the SoS to produce a Code of Practice to regulate scammer PPCs:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

In Feb 2022 this Code of Practice linked below sailed through Parliament with no objections and unanimous applause by MPs, so it is undoubtedly the will of Parliament, save for the caveat below about the review on the 'money' (caps):

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#annex-e-terminology-in-parking-operatordebt-recovery-agent-communication

Note of course (sigh...) that the DLUHC statutory Code is temporarily 'withdrawn'.

That's due to two specific Judicial Review applications that the Government realised had possible merit (Summer 2022) funded by a tiny drop of the industry's billions sloshing around, money that MPs view as 'extorted' (see DLUHC Minister Neil O'Brien's phrase in the foreword) from victims - and clueless lease firms - who blindly pay private parking charges.

Those JRs were effectively about due process not having been followed in the decision-making, and the JRs forced a review of two matters (and only two matters).  See below.

In 2024 we are - finally - nearly there and ready to reissue the Code after extra evidence and reviews of ONLY these two decisions:

1.  The level of a parking charge (the cap)

2.  Whether debt recovery 'fees' can/should be added on top of an already increased PCN and if not, are they confirmed as banned? If not banned, what is the cap on that 'fee'?

No other clauses are affected.

And as I say, 'we' are nearly there now and the Code will be a creature of (deriving from) statute.  I can't talk about the work but I have been representing the consumer side on the DLUHC private parking Code Steering Group for four years (since it started).

Anyhoo, of the clauses that won't be touched, we have the banning of certain words that imply statutory penalties or a level of 'authority' that this rogue industry doesn't have, and will never have:

Annex E: Terminology in parking operator/debt recovery agent communication

E.1 General

"The terminology used in a notice of parking charge must be clear, concisely conveying to the reader what they are being asked to pay, why, how to pay, the consequences of not paying, and how to appeal against the charge, but must not misrepresent to the reader that the parking charge arises from the exercise of the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. Therefore the notice of parking charge must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority, nor pressurise the reader such that they do not consider all their options or make a decision that they might not otherwise have made.

E.2 Wording used in operator notices

Operators must not use the following terms:

• offence, offender, offending vehicle
• order for recovery
• Notice of Intended Prosecution
• illegal parking
• crime
• violation
• (anything impersonating a council PCN)
• “Fixed” charge or anything impersonating a “NIP” (Police wording);
• fine or penalty
• Bailiff
• Penalty Charge Notice

This is not an exhaustive list.

Operators must also not use terminology likely to be read as a Penalty Charge Notice (e.g. Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery) or a Notice of Intended Prosecution (e.g. fixed charge)."

Fruitcake

A parking company could use the word "penalty," and send a penalty notice, but only where byelaws apply.

I'll wager the original parking charge notice/notice to keeper (PCN/NTK) did not use the word "offence," but we don't know because it went to the keeper which was the lease company. The OP's contract with the lease company did use the word "offence," but if that word was not included on the NTK, but was instead called a parking charge notice, then the parking company never claimed an offence had occurred. The lease company has made up or applied a contract term that (probably) did not apply to the original parking charge notice, and (probably) would not have been on the original contract (the signs at the site) between the driver and the parking company.
Again, we don't know because the OP never received the NTK and has never been given a notice to hirer, but the parking company never claimed that the driver nor hirer breached the contract terms displayed at the site, therefore the hirer can never have been liable for the initial parking charge.


I still think the OP would be better served taking this over to the parking forum where they might receive the benefit of advice from two solicitors and several successful parking lay representatives who regularly post there, but I respect their right to keep it on this forum instead.

Anyway, I don't understand why, on a money saving forum, people are so adamant that a poster should do the exact opposite of saving money.

MobileSaver

Coupon-mad said:

MobileSaver said:

nopcns said:

One last attempt... The difference is that there is no "offence" being committed in civil law. An "offence" can only be committed under criminal law.

So you keep saying but without providing any evidence to backup your statement!

Please can you reference the legislation that confirms an "offence" can only be committed under criminal law bearing in mind that @Jenni_D has already provided an impartial reputable source that clearly states a breach of a rule is an "offence" regardless of whether criminality or a statutory authority is involved or not...

Note of course (sigh...) that the DLUHC statutory Code is temporarily 'withdrawn'.

Anyhoo, of the clauses that won't be touched, we have the banning of certain words that imply statutory penalties or a level of 'authority' that this rogue industry doesn't have, and will never have:

That's great thanks, every day is a school day.

So basically, if I understand this correctly, here and now today (and more importantly on the date of the alleged offence) it is not against the law for the parking company to refer to an offence having being committed but at some point in the future it may/will become law?

Regardless though, the fundamental checking question is will the Private Parking Code of Practice apply to a leasing company as in the OP's specific case it is the lessor, not the parking company, that refers to a "parking offence"?

Trainerman

sjs2013 said:

 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.

(Location is England.)

I have followed this thread with interest and some incredulity. For me, the lease Company and their trade association are bang out of order. Particularly so for repeating the ignorant notion that the OP can still appeal. By paying up the lease company have removed all chances (rights??) of appeal.

Which brings us to the agreement. Plenty of argument about "offences" and whether the clause covers private company charges. Yet for me the key word is 'legal'. This means appertaining to the law. A PPC charge is not connected to the law, it is a speculative invoice. Therefore, this clause to pay all legal costs does not apply as it is no such thing

Edit to add that Cambridge dictionary specifically defines "offence" as "an illegal act"

BikingBud

sjs2013 said:

born_again said:

Where is the rest that may have the info in?

The lease co's name is replaced with ACME (as I don't want to disclose their name at this stage in a public forum).

Here it is:

Your contract with us

SNIP.......

Conditions for using the vehicle

You must not make use of any integrated services including app connectivity without prior written agreement. We reserve the right to charge you for removing your personal information from the vehicle.

SNIP.....

That Term seems excessive but not familiar with lease and long time since I hired a vehicle but I did contest with Enterprise here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5644386/are-car-hire-firms-legally-obliged-to-pay-charge-notices#latest