Salary sacrifice scheme and ParkingEye fines

oldernonethewiser

I have to say I agree with those who say, don't bother with this scheme. 

Who knows what "parking charges" you might find yourself paying. 

Half_way

The parking industry is completely un regulated, there would be nothing to stop a company having a relationship with another.

 There is nothing to stop a parking company targeting lease/hire vehicles.

 There have not been any reports of such but the system is wide open to abuse as it is

Fruitcake

Based on the information you have provided, my advice is to rearrange the following words.

"bargepole, a 3.2 m long, the Tusker agreement, Don't touch, with."

Johnersh

Ah the clause which is the elephant in the room… #DadJokes

glaw5

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply. Outwith this the deal is a very good deal in other ways and one I've already agreed to. However I do agree this part needs some more exploring and I have just sent them an email utilising some of your helpful bits of advice.

I have also found the section within the driver documents that were sent to me after I had agreed to the offer which first caught my attention and led me to contact them about it initially. In my latest email I have asked them why Parking Eye receive special attention and requesting more detail as well as a discussion with a manager.

In the documents it states:

If your vehicle is issued with a private land fine (Penalty Charge Notice or Notice

to Keeper), where possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the

private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to you for settlement.

This means you will be able to challenge the notice with the issuing company

directly. Where a transfer is not possible, payment will be made by Tusker and

invoiced to your employer and they will deduct it from your net salary.*

Tusker reserves the right to pay any fine on your behalf if a private notice

increases or escalates to debt recovery, or if our arrangements with the relevant

parking company allow us to do so without impacting your ability to challenge

the notice.

All fines and charges are dealt with according to guidelines laid out by the

following organisations: British Parking Association, British Vehicle Rental and

Leasing Association and Protection of Freedoms.

*Please note there are additional restrictions around notices issued on railway land

and as such these will be paid immediately by Tusker and cannot be contested.

* PCNs issued by Parking Eye are paid immediately. You are offered 6 months to

lodge an appeal from the date of issue as customer of Tusker.

Castle

glaw5 said:

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply. Outwith this the deal is a very good deal in other ways and one I've already agreed to. However I do agree this part needs some more exploring and I have just sent them an email utilising some of your helpful bits of advice.

I have also found the section within the driver documents that were sent to me after I had agreed to the offer which first caught my attention and led me to contact them about it initially. In my latest email I have asked them why Parking Eye receive special attention and requesting more detail as well as a discussion with a manager.

In the documents it states:

If your vehicle is issued with a private land fine (Penalty Charge Notice or Notice

to Keeper), where possible we will always request a transfer of liability and the

private parking companies will reissue the notice directly to you for settlement.

This means you will be able to challenge the notice with the issuing company

directly. Where a transfer is not possible, payment will be made by Tusker and

invoiced to your employer and they will deduct it from your net salary.*

So who has the contract with Tusker; you or your company?

glaw5

I have the contract with Tusker but as it's a salary sacrifice scheme then the company is tied in too I guess.

Half_way

what the tusk is a private land fine?
sounds like they have not got a clue. 
Which would/ could work well in your favour should you have issues. 

Out of interest does this agreement come under the consumer rights act? 

LDast

Tusker are utter morons when it comes to this. Their excuse is that the Hirer is the employer. The employee who is purchasing the vehicle through their salary sacrifice is the day to day keeper.

Whatever arrangement Tusker have with the Hirer (the employer) should not absolve them from the ability to transfer liability away from themselves as the Keeper. However, they do not follow the prescribed method of legally transferring liability as required under PoFA. Instead, they either pay the PCN, thus depriving the employee of any right to appeal, even though the "Tusker Fines Team" (utter feckwits of the first order) send a copy of the NtK together with a letter of authority to the employee, telling them to deal with it and if their appeal is successful, they will refund the payment, as though they are dealing with a statutory penalty notice.

Tusker need to alter their contract for salary sacrifice schemes by requiring the Hirer (the employer) to take responsibility for the transferred liability. This only needs the employer/hirer to give the employee a letter of authority to deal with the NtH in the companies name.

So, instead we have the ridiculous situation where a bunch of moronic idiots at Tusker screw the system up and leave the employee having the PCN charge docked from their wages with no chance of appeal as the PPC is laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone with a salary sacrifice car through Tusker needs to sue Tusker if they want to get their money back.

I'm already dealing with two similar cases involving Tusker. One where they are adamant that the PPC won't accept a transfer of liability (rubbish) and they have sent a copy of the NtK to the employee with a letter of authority to deal with it, which the employee can't as it is only an NtK and any rejection of any appeal will revert back to the Keeper (Tusker) who will end up paying it and deducting it from the employee's salary.

The other is one where Tusker have said that they have transferred liability and then sent a copy of the NtK and letter of authority to the employee. However, the employee is not going to receive the NtH, their employer will receive it. How the employer deals with it, is anyones guess but I have advised the employee to try and pre-empt it with their employer.

Fruitcake

As already mentioned, the Tusker contract looks like it breaches the CRA 2015 because it contains unfair terms. Anything that denies the motorist the right to appeal is an unfair contract term.

I suggest you send a warning to Tusker and your employer that if you are denied the right to appeal, you retain the right to issue a court claim against both for this breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
You should also point out the inaccuracies and blatant untruths being told, including but not limited to: -

The PoFA is not being followed.
The BVRLA Guidelines telling its members not to pay charges but to transfer liability is not being followed.
That unregulated private parking companies cannot issue fines or penalties.
That the BPA is unregulated and funded entirely by the unregulated parking industry.
That there is no mention of any other parking trade association, or what happens in those circumstances.

If you are a union member, your rep' should be all over this like a rash and demanding a change to new and existing contracts.

I hope you never receive a PCN resulting in money unlawfully being taken from you as a result, but having been a member of this forum for about a decade, I think the risk involved in this vehicle purchase scheme out-way any possible benefits.
As I mentioned earlier, I would not touch such an agreement as currently written with a bargepole of any length.