Absolutely livid with my lease company

Seagull-Stripes

So as the title suggests.

They only went and "represented" the parking fine on my behalf, got it turned down and then paid it.

I am absolutely livid as I also appealed it, got it turned down and was waiting to follow the process as is documented on here.

I sent the lease company an email explaing that I am livid and that they should have done all of the above without consuting me and to put the case on hold as I seek advice on this matter.

I mean, what was their represenatation??

GXS have obviously tried their luck and gone direct to the lease co and they fell for it.

Any advice would be gratefully recieved.

Thanks!!

Gr1pr

The registered keeper ( lease company. ) can pay any invoices sent to them with their name on, more fools them for paying it 

The real issues are if they now tried to obtain monies from you as hirer or lessee, if not, job done, their loss 

If they now try to obtain monies from you, then its all down to the wording on their own contract with you, if private parking charges from private property companies isn't mentioned, you have no liability 

If they are BVRLA members, you can try their dispute resolution ADR , should the lease company try to charge you 

GrumpyDil

Ask them to provide the section of the lease agreement which allows them to settle speculative invoices on your behalf.

If they send you an exert which refers to paying fines etc point out that this was not a fine but solely a speculative civil invoice and argue they had no right to do this and therefore you are not agreeing to reimburse them. 

Seagull-Stripes

Thanks for the replies!!

Will get in touch with them and see what they come back with.

Half_way

Relay important not to cal it a fine under any circumstances with the lease company

DO    NOT   CALL   IT   A    FINE

with that out of the way, can you post the exact terms for your lease?

Seagull-Stripes

Hi all.

So I finally got a copy of the lease agreement and have extracted the part that is relevant to parking charges. Seems to me they have their wording buttoned up nicely with para 5.2.

If most leasing companies have this is their contracts, which I assume most/all will do, it seems that they can pay up and claim back from the keeper of the vehicle.

The thing that bugs me is that I did appeal this one directly and was waiting out the process with the debt companies but it seems that the parking cowboys have found an easier way of extracting money indirectly from the motorist who drives a lease vehicle. That is by reissuing the parking charge with the lease companies name on it knowing that the lease company will pay it and claim back from the keeper. Easy money for them!!

The only thing I can think of at this stage is to appeal to the ombudsman and/or whatever body governs the lease companies and try and get that rule changed across the sector but that'll be no easy task. Or will it?

I'm glad to say that I am finally out of the world of leasing cars and vans so it'll be solely me dealing directly with the parking cowboys.

 

Gr1pr

They are members of the BVRLA, so must have agreed to the BVRLA memorandum of understanding about 7 years ago 

There was an agreement on procedures for private PCNs issued by private parking companies 

They also have a tribunal system too

Half_way

AS private parking is completely un regulated 5.2 could possibly fail the consumer rights act.

Fruitcake

The contract term used is "indemnify." There is nothing there at all stating that the hire/lease company has the right to interfere with the lessee's rights by paying an unregulated private parking company and thus preventing them from complying with the contract requirements, (preventing the lessee from indemnifying the lessor), or deny the lessee's right to an appeals process.
The latter would be considered an unfair contract term, and a breach of the CRA 2015, Section 71.

All the lessor had to do was tear off the transfer of liability slip on the NTK and send it to the PPC. Job done. 
However, by paying the charge, the lessor has admitted liability by conduct in my opinion.

Seagull-Stripes

Thanks again for all of your help with this matter.

So it turns out that after the PPC contacted my lease company way back, my lease company provided them with my details of which apparently the PPC didn't accept. My lease company then sent a second letter stating the same and that they are not the keeper of the vehicle and that it is on a long term lease and provided them with my details again. (The lease company provided me with copies of these so I know they were sent).

The next thing they know, they get a debt letter from Trace after which they decided to pay to prevent it escalating any further.

It just annoys the hell out me the fact that lease compaines aren't that wise to the process and despite me having to remind them of the transfer of liability agreements between the industry bodies of which they are both members of, there is no admittance that the process they undertook was not correct.

Why didn't they just tell GXS or Trace to take a running jump? 

They provided the keepers details as per the memorandum guidelines between the IPC and BVRLA but they buckled as soon as they get a letter from a "debt collector".

It seems as though the PPC are exploiting this potential loophole with lkease companies. It's simple for them. They send a debt letter to the lease company, the lease company pays it, no questions asked knoiwing that they will claim the money back from the likes of us.

This is going to end up being an Ombudsman, BVRLA and small claims court job I think as I simply cannot accept this.

Half_way

It seems as though the PPC are exploiting this potential loophole with lkease companies. It's simple for them. They send a debt letter to the lease company, the lease company pays it, no questions asked knoiwing that they will claim the money back from the likes of us.

While there has been no evidence put forward so far of this, there would be nothing to stop a lease company also having an interest in a/or being involved with an un regulated parking company = double proffit

This is going to end up being an Ombudsman, BVRLA and small claims court job I think as I simply cannot accept this.

At least you're willing to fight this - keep us upto date, and while your at it take the fight to the landowner as well