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

sjs2013

Jenni_D said:

sjs2013 said:

Jenni_D said:

I think the premise is that if you have a credit agreement (which essentially is what an ongoing hire agreement is, which is what a company car lease agreement effectively is) then it may be possible for them to place a marker on your credit file for a missed payment. 🤷‍♀️

My ongoing current lease contract is not with them. So I don't think they can put a missed pay marker.

Can you clarify exactly what sort of contractual arrangement exists here please? On what basis do the lease/hire company believe they can charge you? Was this a single hire event rather than an ongoing hire? (It's hard to determine this based on the info you've provided so far).

When I used to have a company car, it was a leased car (costs paid by my employer, and I paid BIK tax for the benefit of the car) but I had no direct contractual liability with the lease company - I was only bound by my employer's Car Policy. Therefore any T&Cs of the lease/hie company were irrelevant.

That's why it's important we understand the contractual arrangement in your situation.  

I had a factory order car with a leasing agent which was delayed. So the leasing agent arranged a car from another renter to cover the delayed period until the original car I ordered could be delivered. The contract I then signed was a 'flexi hire' contract with the temporary renter - which could be extended on a rolling monthly contract basis. 

My original car was delivered since then so the temporary renter's car is returned & I don't have any more running contract with them. I hope it clarifies.

nopcns

In which case you wait and see if the hire company takes the matter further. They have stupidly paid the PCN and therefore accepted liability for it. According to the contract you had with them, if they chose to do that stupid thing, you are not liable for their stupidity.

Any defence, should they try to issue a claim, will be defended on the basis as discussed earlier. I'm sure that if a copy of the original NtK was available that there would be a statement in it that advises the registered keeper on how to transfer liability if the keeper is a hire/lease company. They have failed to take the opportunity to transfer liability and by paying it, accepted that liability themselves.

By trying to rely on a clause/term in the contract between you and the company that does not cover parking charges from private parking companies, they have no cause of action.

Okell

nopcns said:

In which case you wait and see if the hire company takes the matter further. They have stupidly paid the PCN and therefore accepted liability for it. According to the contract you had with them, if they chose to do that stupid thing, you are not liable for their stupidity.

Any defence, should they try to issue a claim, will be defended on the basis as discussed earlier. I'm sure that if a copy of the original NtK was available that there would be a statement in it that advises the registered keeper on how to transfer liability if the keeper is a hire/lease company. They have failed to take the opportunity to transfer liability and by paying it, accepted that liability themselves.

By trying to rely on a clause/term in the contract between you and the company that does not cover parking charges from private parking companies, they have no cause of action.

@sjs2013 -  if the hire company does try to sue you for this, can I suggest that as well as arguing in your defence that (a) a private parking notice like this one is not covered by the wording of the contractual term in question, that you make sure that you also argue that (b) in any case the contractual term in question is unfair under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) and therefore unenforceable.

In fact any term "... which has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy..." is given as a specific example of an unfair term in para 20 of Schedule 2 of the Act.

I'd suggest you do not rely solely on the narrow ground that a private parking charge/notice/invoice is not covered by the words "All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road-traffic, parking offences or any other offence involving the rental vehicle..."

(FWIW I'm actually pretty confident that the parking experts are right and that the term does not include private parking charges and that a court would agree with that view.  But as you will have seen from the thread, many posters seem to think that the word "offence" carries a wider meaning than it actually does in a strict legal context.  Also I always think it's better to have more than one basket to put all of your eggs in...) 

Jenni_D

And also don't forget Contra Proferentem in respect of the Parking Offences angle. (Loosely ... Any ambiguity in terms must be determined in favour of the consumer).  

KeithP

Jenni_D said:

And also don't forget Contra Proferentem in respect of the Parking Offences angle. (Loosely ... Any ambiguity in terms must be determined in favour of the consumer).  

And for anyone not understanding that dead foreign language, perhaps a glimpse at section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act 2015 will help...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

 

And if that's not clear enough, the Explanatory Notes try a little harder to get the message across...

Section 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
331. Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways, especially if they are not in writing or in an accessible format. In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used. 

  

Okell

Jenni_D said:

And also don't forget Contra Proferentem in respect of the Parking Offences angle. (Loosely ... Any ambiguity in terms must be determined in favour of the consumer).  

And that.  A third point

Jenni_D

It's not really a third point ... it's supporting evidence for the first point re. interpretation of the terms not allowing them to pay and charge for parking charge notices.