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

born_again

Thanks @sheramber


£25 would not be classed as unfair. When you can pay £50 for cancelation of insurance policy, which FCA are more than happy with.
Especially given that cost is not just letter to Op, but also sorting out & paying the Invoice to the parking co.

Jenni_D

born_again said:

Thanks @sheramber


£25 would not be classed as unfair. When you can pay £50 for cancelation of insurance policy, which FCA are more than happy with.
Especially given that cost is not just letter to Op, but also sorting out & paying the Invoice to the parking co.

Which they shouldn't be doing, as they have a means to pass liability to the hirer. Which their trade association (BVRLA) says is what they are to do ... and these companies have had well over a decade to get used to this mechanism (but seemingly choose not to - I wonder why?). If they don't pass liability then the charge is theirs to bear, not the hirer's. (And we're back to the T&Cs being defective again).  

MobileSaver

Jenni_D said:

born_again said:

Thanks @sheramber

£25 would not be classed as unfair. When you can pay £50 for cancelation of insurance policy, which FCA are more than happy with.
Especially given that cost is not just letter to Op, but also sorting out & paying the Invoice to the parking co.

Which they shouldn't be doing, as they have a means to pass liability to the hirer. Which their trade association (BVRLA) says is what they are to do

Why do you keep making things up?!?!

The BVRLA categorically states that their members can EITHER pass liability OR pay the invoice themselves and recharge the hirer; they even supply an example clause that the company can use to allow pay and recharge.

As I've said before, I think they're mad to be handling parking offences in this way and are opening themselves up to nothing but trouble but that's their business decision for whatever reason. 

To my mind they could just as easily pass liability to the hirer and still charge £25 for their trouble so why they create the additional hassle and risk for themselves is a mystery.

Undervalued

Jenni_D said:

born_again said:

Thanks @sheramber


£25 would not be classed as unfair. When you can pay £50 for cancelation of insurance policy, which FCA are more than happy with.
Especially given that cost is not just letter to Op, but also sorting out & paying the Invoice to the parking co.

Which they shouldn't be doing, as they have a means to pass liability to the hirer. Which their trade association (BVRLA) says is what they are to do ... and these companies have had well over a decade to get used to this mechanism (but seemingly choose not to - I wonder why?). If they don't pass liability then the charge is theirs to bear, not the hirer's. (And we're back to the T&Cs being defective again).  

Unless their "trade association" has statutory regulation powers it can only advise.

If Mobile Saver is correct, the association is merely providing advice as to how their members might handle this if paying and passing on is their chosen course of action.

born_again

Given OP has a complaint in with BVRLA then it's best to wait & see for the OP to come back with the result of that complaint. 👍

Jumblebumble

MobileSaver said:

Jenni_D said:

Remember that the people actioning these requests are already employed, so their costs are already borne - the lease company isn't having to employ additional people just to cope with this task.

I'm sorry but that's just a spurious claim presented as fact. You have absolutely no idea of the basis on which someone having to respond to hirer's inactions is employed. An obvious example is a small company may have a part-time administrator who does so many hours a week and now has to do more hours to deal with all the speeding and parking driver requests.

Regardless of how they are employed, having to deal with a hirer's actions or inactions outside of the normal process of hiring a vehicle is an additional cost of certainly time and almost always money. Whether a company wants to make a reasonable profit from that is their own business choice and it's not for you or anyone else to be telling them that charging actual costs is financially beneficial.

I am in agreement
One  might just as well argue that it is acceptable are dodge on a train  because all the costs of running that train are already borne which would not get you very far in front of the beak.
The real point here should be to bear in mind that  the the parking charge is simply an invoice for breaching a contract 

This gives some excellent advice here

Dispute it, especially if they are BVRLA members, after carefully checking the hire or lease documents, don't accept their definition of fine or penalty, because this pcn was neither, for BVRLA members go to dispute resolution by the BVRLA because they didn't follow the BVRLA memorandum of understanding, and get a chargeback too

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149384

Jenni_D

Why go to Pepipoo when there's a perfectly good board here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/parking-tickets-fines-parking

born_again

Jumblebumble said:

MobileSaver said:

Jenni_D said:

Remember that the people actioning these requests are already employed, so their costs are already borne - the lease company isn't having to employ additional people just to cope with this task.

I'm sorry but that's just a spurious claim presented as fact. You have absolutely no idea of the basis on which someone having to respond to hirer's inactions is employed. An obvious example is a small company may have a part-time administrator who does so many hours a week and now has to do more hours to deal with all the speeding and parking driver requests.

Regardless of how they are employed, having to deal with a hirer's actions or inactions outside of the normal process of hiring a vehicle is an additional cost of certainly time and almost always money. Whether a company wants to make a reasonable profit from that is their own business choice and it's not for you or anyone else to be telling them that charging actual costs is financially beneficial.

I am in agreement
One  might just as well argue that it is acceptable are dodge on a train  because all the costs of running that train are already borne which would not get you very far in front of the beak.
The real point here should be to bear in mind that  the the parking charge is simply an invoice for breaching a contract 

This gives some excellent advice here

Dispute it, especially if they are BVRLA members, after carefully checking the hire or lease documents, don't accept their definition of fine or penalty, because this pcn was neither, for BVRLA members go to dispute resolution by the BVRLA because they didn't follow the BVRLA memorandum of understanding, and get a chargeback too

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149384

Not a chance....🤣

sjs2013

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.

My questions for you to shed some lights on:

1. Does BVRLA has any process for complaints about incomplete complaint resolution? Will there be any point escalating it further with them?

2. I'm going to refuse to pay the renter due to BVRLA's incomplete resolution. I think then they will start sending streams of Debt Recovery letter. But I'll prefer to go to court & settle it there. So how do I tell them to go to court?

Here's BVRLA's reply (renter's real name is replaced with ACME LTD.)

We have now received a response from ACME LTD (renter) regarding your complaint.  We understand you dispute the charge for a parking violation and by ACME LTD (renter) paying this they have prevented your right of appeal.

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, and the handling of these offences results in additional administrative duties to be carried out. Due to the high volume of notifications from parking companies, local authorities and the police, rental companies may have to employ an entire team to deal with these, and the costs for doing so is passed on to the customer. By recouping these costs from those directly responsible, those customers who have not committed offences are not penalised.

We are of the view that rental companies are justified in charging an administration fee to handle these, providing the administration fee is referenced in the rental terms and conditions that you accepted at the start of your hire.  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’.

We appreciate your comment that by paying this on your behalf you are unable to appeal this with the parking company, however, you can still appeal it and if the appeal is successful and ACME LTD (renter) receive a refund from the parking company then they will arrange a credit.

In light of the evidence before us we are of the view that the charges have been correctly raised by ACME LTD (renter) and we are unable to uphold your complaint against them. We would like to assure you that all aspects of your complaint have been fully examined and would wish to thank you for bringing the matter to our attention.

Jenni_D

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

In terms of their reply ...

"Due to the high volume of notifications from parking companies, local authorities and the police"; the vast majority of such notifications will be from parking companies. As such their members should have clear working policies on how to address them - they've had over 13 years now to get it right! Accordingly the correct procedure should be ingrained and be semi-automated; it's the actual penalty notices that need closer attention and which should take more time to handle.

"the authorities have to contact them regarding offences committed by the driver"; parking companies are not authorities, and thus a notification is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract not a penalty notice in relation to an offence.