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

Coupon-mad

No, lease firms & fleets are not bound by the Code of Practice so they can call it whatever they want ('scam invoice' is a good phrase).

However:

All these companies (PPCs and lease hire firms alike) are bound by the CRA 2015 and I agree with those here who state that the clause as drafted falls foul of the legal test of fairness.  Either due to ambiguity alone or due to the fact it denies the victim their right to appeal.

The BVRLA are completely wrong to say this can be appealed. It can't.

I see this thread is now on the right board.

We have certainly seen several banks return (refuse) a payment taken under a DD due to this sort of lease term, where people have asked for a chargeback.

MobileSaver

Coupon-mad said:

The BVRLA are completely wrong to say this can be appealed. It can't.

That would appear to be a fatal error in the BVRLA's initial complaint rejection so it will be interesting to see what their response to that point is.

BikingBud

MobileSaver said:

nopcns said:

they have misinterpreted the section that states the hirer is liable for any "parking offences". Unless the parking operator (PPC) is a statutory authority, which we all know they aren't, then no "offence" can have been committed.

I disagree but I'm happy to be proved wrong - which applicable legislation states an offence can only be committed against a statutory authority?
For example, how do you square that circle with drinking on the job often being a sackable "offence" irrespective of whether the employer is a statutory authority or not?

Because the terms within your contract specifically state that "drinking at work is a sackable offence" therefore if you do it you get sacked.

You could add many over nouns as you see fit in place of offence: misdemeanour, misconduct, transgression, crime, breach, infringement, behaviour, sin add more as required.

It does not set out a definition for "offence" it does not need to, it explicitly says you meet the condition "drinking at work" we can sack you, simples.

Discussion about "offences" as setting a specific legal bar are likely the same as definitions of misdemeanour and felony in the US.

BikingBud

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’.

But that phrase is different to what Page 10 of the BVRLA guidance says:

1. Paying and recharging

   Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this.
   
   

   A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges:

   All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”

Omission of the "or parking notice" contravenes the advice from the BVRLA's own trade guidance. 

It can only be deduced that the hire company modified the trade standard wording, excluding that phrase, knowing it would inhibit their empowerment to pay and recharge via the contract and therefore renders them wholly liable for their own decision to concede to the spurious invoice for payment.

@jenni_d what was that phrase again?

MobileSaver

BikingBud said:

MobileSaver said:

nopcns said:

they have misinterpreted the section that states the hirer is liable for any "parking offences". Unless the parking operator (PPC) is a statutory authority, which we all know they aren't, then no "offence" can have been committed.

I disagree but I'm happy to be proved wrong - which applicable legislation states an offence can only be committed against a statutory authority?
For example, how do you square that circle with drinking on the job often being a sackable "offence" irrespective of whether the employer is a statutory authority or not?

Because the terms within your contract specifically state that "drinking at work is a sackable offence" therefore if you do it you get sacked.

It does not set out a definition for "offence" it does not need to, it explicitly says you meet the condition "drinking at work" we can sack you, simples.

I agree entirely! 

The OP's contract terms specifically state that the leasing company can pay and recharge for any parking offence, and using your example they don't define "offence", they don't need to, if they meet their condition of "any parking offence" then they can pay and recharge, simples...

Half_way

Within the meaning of a contract the the term "offence" is a legal term as they are bound by the laws of the land and as such the term "offence" has a clear definition ( which is not a private parking charge)

Within the meaning of employment you will be bound by the rules of the company whilst employed. while it may be an "offence" to drink while at work under workplace rules, no offence within the legal definition of the word offence has taken place , unless drinking whilst in charge of X is a specific legal offence ( ie driving a car/train/flying a plane and so on)

Jenni_D

BikingBud said:

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’.

But that phrase is different to what Page 10 of the BVRLA guidance says:

1. Paying and recharging

   Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this.
   
   

   A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges:

   All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”

Omission of the "or parking notice" contravenes the advice from the BVRLA's own trade guidance. 

It can only be deduced that the hire company modified the trade standard wording, excluding that phrase, knowing it would inhibit their empowerment to pay and recharge via the contract and therefore renders them wholly liable for their own decision to concede to the spurious invoice for payment.

@jenni_d what was that phrase again?

Contra proferentem? Summarily defined as "if there is any ambiguity in a contract term, then the understanding that benefits the party that did not draw up the terms shall apply"

MobileSaver

BikingBud said:

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’.

But that phrase is different to what Page 10 of the BVRLA guidance says:

1. Paying and recharging

   Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this.
   
   

   A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges:

   All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”

Omission of the "or parking notice" contravenes the advice from the BVRLA's own trade guidance. 

It can only be deduced that the hire company modified the trade standard wording, excluding that phrase, knowing it would inhibit their empowerment to pay and recharge via the contract and therefore renders them wholly liable for their own decision to concede to the spurious invoice for payment.

I suspect the discrepancy is due to the detailed explanation from @Coupon-mad that legislation was implemented (or was about to be) but then withdrawn. Either the lessor never got around to updating their terms or they reverted back to old terms when the legislation was withdrawn.

I disagree on your conclusion as I think not having that term actually makes it marginally harder for the lessor to defend their position. Regardless as @Coupon-mad said earlier, the lessor can call the parking charge whatever they want and so that in itself is irrelevant.

BikingBud

MobileSaver said:

BikingBud said:

MobileSaver said:

nopcns said:

they have misinterpreted the section that states the hirer is liable for any "parking offences". Unless the parking operator (PPC) is a statutory authority, which we all know they aren't, then no "offence" can have been committed.

I disagree but I'm happy to be proved wrong - which applicable legislation states an offence can only be committed against a statutory authority?
For example, how do you square that circle with drinking on the job often being a sackable "offence" irrespective of whether the employer is a statutory authority or not?

Because the terms within your contract specifically state that "drinking at work is a sackable offence" therefore if you do it you get sacked.

It does not set out a definition for "offence" it does not need to, it explicitly says you meet the condition "drinking at work" we can sack you, simples.

I agree entirely! 

The OP's contract terms specifically state that the leasing company can pay and recharge for any parking offence, and using your example they don't define "offence", they don't need to, if they meet their condition of "any parking offence" then they can pay and recharge, simples...

Ever repetitive circles.

What is the offence? Cleary my observation was that the; misdemeanour, misconduct, transgression, crime, breach, infringement, behaviour, sin defined as drinking at work gets you sacked.

Where is the offence for parking on private land?

UK law doesn't consider it offence, many people with significant experience of dealing with the rogue private parking industry, including those who have acted as advocates and legal representatives for victims of the wild west of private parking do not consider it an offence, in fact some on here have advised you that members of the judiciary do not consider it an offence. And yet some always know better!

Even in the vagueness of the trade standard advice it is still not an offence! Perhaps you might find it persuasive that even the BVRLA do not consider it an offence when parking on private land, it is a simple contractual breach: 

Contractual breach
The driver who parks in a car park has implicitly accepted the terms for parking offered by the private parking operator or landowner. A contract has therefore been made – and can be breached.
The private parking operator (or landowner) must make the terms and conditions for parking clear to users of the car park. This is generally done by displaying appropriate signage.
The contract between the car park user (the vehicle driver) and the private parking operator is broken if, for example, the driver outstays a time limit on parking, or occupies a space reserved for categories of car park user to which they do not belong, such as residents or employees. In such instances, the landowner or their agent can lawfully obtain registered keeper details from the DVLA and issue a parking charge notice.

It is not a penalty or an offence.

If the contract stipulated specifically that Parking Charge Notices could be recharged then that might make their case but it doesn't.

MobileSaver

Half_way said:

Within the meaning of a contract the the term "offence" is a legal term as they are bound by the laws of the land and as such the term "offence" has a clear definition ( which is not a private parking charge)

Several other posters have said similar but they seem reluctant to share their source on this thread. Where is the term "offence" clearly defined?

Half_way said:

Within the meaning of employment you will be bound by the rules of the company whilst employed. while it may be an "offence" to drink while at work under workplace rules, no offence within the legal definition of the word offence has taken place ,

In what way are a lease contract and an employment contract fundamentally different? Are they not both legal contracts with terms and conditions that must be abided by and both are bound by the laws of the land?