Van Hire Company passing on charge for MET Parking Charge Notice (BP Stansted)

Bakewell70

Good Morning

Just been informed of a Parking Charge Notice issued to a hire company we used. Hubby was driving on day in question. It was for parking on double yellow lines within the BP Garage Stansted. Hire Company policy is to pay the "fine" and re-charge customer plus £24 admin fee which is very annoying as they are assuming all tickets are justified. They havent taken payment yet as the card details they hold were apparently declined. Also the Hire Company seem to have appealed to MET (but lost) as they sent me a copy of METs reply. I dont know the contents of the appeal but METs reply mentions there is car parking at the rear of the shop if the bays in front are occupied, there is suffient signage and something about the size of the charge (they quote Beavis case). I've just checked the relevant dates and it would appear the parking notice was issued more than 14 days after alleged contravention. 

Date of Alleged Contravention: 09/03/24
Date of Issue (taken from Notice to Hirer): 2/04/24
Date of Notice to Hirer: 25/04/04

Of course we want to fight this direct with MET but how do we go about it ? I'm assuming the Hire Co is registered keeper, but they also sent me a copy of a Notice to Hirer with their details on - so perhaps they only rent the veicles. I'm a bit confused.  The Hire Co havent actually paid  the fee yet as I can access the online paymnet/appeals system at the moment. Any advice welcomed before I go back to Hire Company with my intentions. 

Thanks

Fruitcake

Stop the payment by the hire company and/or put it in dispute/warn your card provider that a fraudulent charge has been made/attempted.

Do not reveal the driver's identity at any point.

Check the hire agreement to see if it specifically mentions parking charge notices by unregulated private parking companies rather than fines and penalties from an authority, which this is not.
Even if it does mention PCNs and PPCs, paying it is an unfair contract term in breach of S69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 since it denies you the right to appeal.

If the hire company is a member of the BVRLA, then they are in breach of their trade association's instructions not to pay but to pass the hirer's details to the PPC.
By paying the charge, the hire company has admitted liability by conduct, and cannot (should not) pass the charge to you.
The hirer cannot be held liable until their details have been passed to the PPC. Until then, the hire company remains liable as keeper as per the PoFA 2012. If however the alleged event occurred on airport land where byelaws apply, the keeper (the hire company) was never liable.

I don't understand how a NTH can have been issued if the charge has been paid. The PPC won't bother with that once they have got their greedy mitts on the money.
In addition, once the charge is paid, you cannot now appeal to MET.

The hirer's beef is now with the hire company.

Bakewell70

Sorry if I havent worded my post correctly. Whilst it is the Hire Company's policy to pay the charge then take payment from the client (us), in this instance our card was declined so they couldn't take payment and therefore  they HAVENT paid the parking "fine" yet . It is still showing on the MET website as outstanding and there appears to be an option to contest - but as I already mentioned the Hire Company have appeared to already put in a appeal which was rejected. Am I able to do the POPLA appeal based on the NTH being issued after 14 days ?

Fruitcake

Are you saying the hire company tried to pay using your card details, which is not the same as paying it then charging you for the privilege?

I don't understand how the hire company can have appealed if you are still able to appeal unless the hirer and the hire company's details are both on the V5C, which I only learned yesterday is possible.

Anyway, if you can appeal the initial charge, then do so using the relevant edna basher appeal letter from the NEWBIES sticky Announcement. There are three to choose from but it should be obvious which one best suits your case. Post it here for checking before you submit it if you are unsure.
You can't appeal to PoPLA without a PoPLA code, which you won't get until an initial appeal has been made and rejected. If the hire company did appeal then it is they who will have been given a code.

nopcns

Which hire company? Are they BVRLA members? Please show us the exact wording in the hire contract that deals with payment of "parking charges". Parking charges are not the same as "parking fines".

Coupon-mad

Hire Company policy is to pay the "fine" and re-charge customer plus £24 admin fee which is very annoying as they are assuming all tickets are justified. They havent taken payment yet as the card details they hold were apparently declined. 

Good.

Tell the Hire form you won't be paying and they must simply use the Transfer of liability slip on the NTH and name you as the hirer/lessee because you know how to appeal and win.  Thus far, you have been denied that right by them failing to transfer liability as per the BVRLA's memorandum of understanding with the BPA, which has been in place for a decade and is easy to follow.

INSIST they transfer liability otherwise it is their problem and remains their liability, by their own active choice.

Bakewell70

The hire company is a member of BVRLA and it is the BVRLA standard Ts&Cs that appear on the hire company's website. The wording in the Ts&Cs is as follows:

"You will be responsible for the following charges.....
...(d) All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence or parking offence, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including costs from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away. You are responsible for paying the appropriate authority or company for any charges and costs if and when they ask for these payments. You will also be responsible for paying our reasonable adminstration charges for dealing with these matters." .....

Ordinarily the Hire Company (HC) would take payment for the "fine" plus admin fee from the card they hold for us and then proceed to pay the "fine" in this case MET. BUT our card was declined therefore they have neither taken payment from us nor paid the MET " fine". The HC emailed me to advise that I need to contact them to make the payment using another card and on that email they attached some correspondance to support the charge notice had been issued whillst we were hiring the vehicle : a Notice To Hirer (addressed to the HC) and a rejection letter (addressed to the HC) containing a POPLA Code. When I went onto the Met Portal to see if the charge had already been paid by HC, I saw that it still shows as outstanding and there seems to be an option to contest. 

I guess my question is : can I appeal directly to POPLA as I have the code ? I don't really want to get into a fight with HC as we use them on a regular basis.

Thank you all 

Half_way

Bakewell70 said:

The hire company is a member of BVRLA and it is the BVRLA standard Ts&Cs that appear on the hire company's website. The wording in the Ts&Cs is as follows:

"You will be responsible for the following charges.....
...(d) All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence or parking offence, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including costs from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away. You are responsible for paying the appropriate authority or company for any charges and costs if and when they ask for these payments. You will also be responsible for paying our reasonable adminstration charges for dealing with these matters." .....

Ordinarily the Hire Company (HC) would take payment for the "fine" plus admin fee from the card they hold for us and then proceed to pay the "fine" in this case MET. BUT our card was declined therefore they have neither taken payment from us nor paid the MET " fine". The HC emailed me to advise that I need to contact them to make the payment using another card and on that email they attached some correspondance to support the charge notice had been issued whillst we were hiring the vehicle : a Notice To Hirer (addressed to the HC) and a rejection letter (addressed to the HC) containing a POPLA Code. When I went onto the Met Portal to see if the charge had already been paid by HC, I saw that it still shows as outstanding and there seems to be an option to contest. 

I guess my question is : can I appeal directly to POPLA as I have the code ? I don't really want to get into a fight with HC as we use them on a regular basis.

Thank you all 

Under Section

A private "parking" charge notice from an un regulated company is none of the things listed , further more as the parking company is un regulated w then even if it did mention parking charge notices this would be an unfair term in the contract.

 While you shouldn't "fight" the Hire company you most certainly need to dig your heels in and instead of being aggressive, politely inform them if you take the approach that the staff of the hire company will be un informed about private parking charges , private parking companies and so on then you may be able to help a few more people in understanding these things instead of thinking of them as fines.

Also you said "was for parking on double yellow lines"

Was this parked or just stopped ( ie for loading/unloading) ?

Fruitcake

"You will be responsible for the following charges.....
...(d) All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence or parking offence, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including costs from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away. You are responsible for paying the appropriate authority or company for any charges and costs if and when they ask for these payments. You will also be responsible for paying our reasonable administration charges for dealing with these matters." ...


The hirer should complain to the hire company and refer them to Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

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.

The meaning that is most favourable to the consumer, the hirer, is that the contract does not include parking charge notices from unregulated private parking companies, therefore the hire company had no business trying to pay the charge, nor any right to demand payment.

Also complain that the BVRLA requires them to pass the hirers details to the PPC, but not to pay the charge. They have failed to comply with their contract with the hirer, and failed to comply with their own trade association's instructions.
Complain to the BVRLA as well. This is on top of complaints to the landowner and the hirer's MP as standard.

If you have a PoPLA code, even if it was given to the hire company, you have the right to make a second stage appeal as per the Alternative Dispute Regulations 2015, therefore you should use the code and appeal as hirer using all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES.
Point 1 should be non PoFA compliant NTH because it did not include the mandatory documents required to comply with paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA.

If PoPLA refuse to accept it because the code was provided to the hire company, then tough, the hire company remain liable and must sort it out themselves. 

Coupon-mad

So you sent what I suggested?

You Googled & read the BPA / BVRLA memorandum of understanding... not just the hire company's own t&cs?

KeithP

I note that the OP says that they use the hiring company 'on a regular basis'.

Was the 'hiring' a business-to-business transaction? If so, it may be that the Consumer Rights Act will not help.