Arval paying parking charges. 15 parking charges due to error.

Insurance_gal2004

Hi! 

I lease my car from Arval. 

I parked in an NCP c2c train station car park and I thought I had set up the autopay function on the 4th November 2024. Unfortunately, there was one crucial button that I didn’t press therefore the car reg was added to the portal but not on the autopay function. I didn’t find this out until over 2 months later when the parking charges started to come through Arval. 6 have come through so far. £60 plus the Arval £15 admin fee. There will be more coming as I park at that car park 2-3 times a week!! 

After reading through the forum for hours, I tried to push back with Arval as follows;

QUOTE

Could you please direct me to where in the contract it states ARVAL is legally liable to pay for Parking Charge Notices? 

Parking charge notices are not a legally enforceable penalty and relate to an alleged breach of contract. This is a civil matter. 

A Notice To Keeper gives the keeper the option of paying the charge or providing the name & address of the driver to the company who issued it.

The protection of freedom act 2012 amendment allows you to pass on the drivers details to the company who has sent the notice. The BVRLA actually instructs its members to do this as good practise.

I am more than happy to allow you to pass them my details so that they have a tangible name and address to pursue. This also absolves yourselves as the registered keeper from any liabilities. 

I hereby notify you that I do not authorise you to take £60 direct debit plus admin fee in relation to the above PCNs.

UNQUOTE

Arval came back as follows;

QUOTE 

With regard to the contract, it is noted on page 2 and again in point 6.1.10 of the terms and conditions that where we are unable to transfer the liability of a fine to you, we will make the payment and recharge this. 

National Car Parks would not accept a transfer of liability request from us without a copy of your hire agreement. As this contains your Direct Debit information we are not able to provide this to them as this would be a breach of your personal data to do so. As the registered keepers of the vehicle the fine was initially address to Arval and therefore failure to make the payment would mean that costs could escalate in Arval’s name and therefore Arval would legally be held liable for this. 

Parking Eye vs Beavis 2015 ruled that parking offences issued by private parking companies are now legally enforceable.

UNQUOTE

Therefore I don’t think I can win on this basis as page 2 is quite clear.

Therefore I’m thinking next step is to appeal to NCP every time. Frustrating thing is if the tickets came quicker I would have found out about my inadvertent error and could have corrected the autopay much quicker. Do you think the below email would work?

QUOTE

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – No Keeper Liability.
With regards to the notice that was posted to the registered keeper of the vehicle, you have attempted to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. However, you have substantially failed because you have not fulfilled the second condition for keeper liability and subsequently not complied with the fundamental requirements set out in POFA 2012.
The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:
''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;
Of which paragraph 6(1)(b) states:
6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
And paragraph 9 (4)(b) states:
(4)The notice must be given by—
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
And the ‘relevant period’ is in paragraph (5):
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”
The PCN was issued on 6th November 2024. The specified period ended on 20th November 2024. The date of posting of this notice was 31st December 2024.
As a result, National Car Parks Ltd has no lawful authority to pursue any unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper, and there should also be no discretion on this matter, as if keeper liability conditions are not fulfilled – then keeper liability simply does not apply.

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service.

UNQUOTE 

Or do you think I should plead my case that it was an error and I thought I had added my car and the intention is there. The portal shows my car was added on the 4th November, 2 days before my car parked in the car park. The car parking charges will be between £1000-£1500. Money I just do not have so as you can imagine. Very stressed!! Obvs happy to backdate and pay the car parking daily rate of £9  

Any help will be very much appreciated. 

Thanks 

Fruitcake

The lease company only knows the name of the hirer/lessee, not that of the driver. You should have only mentioned transfer of liability to the hirer/lessee.

These are not fines. Carefully read what your lease says. If it mentions fines and penalties but not parking charge notices from unregulated private parking companies, then you were never liable.

If it does mention parking charge notices, but says these will be paid without warning or transfer of liability, then it is an unfair contract term and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it has removed the lessee's right to appeal.

It is irrelevant what Arval think NCP might do once they have been given the hirer/lessee's name. It is not Arval's decision, and as you have rightly stated, the BVRLA has instructed its members to pass the hirer/lessee's details to the PPC.

Unless and until liability has been transferred, Arval remain liable for the charge. By paying these charges themselves they have accepted that they are liable by conduct.

If they bill you, put the charges in dispute with your financial provider. You should also warn Arval that if they take any monies without your specific authorisation, you reserve the right to recover such monies through the courts.

DE_612183

what does the Atval contract actually say on page 2 and point 6.1.10?

DE_612183

They could also easily send a copy of a contract with bank details redacted - I'm pretty sure the name and address are personal data as well...

Insurance_gal2004

Thanks everyone. 

This is on page 2 of the contract;

QUOTE 

In the event that you should incur a fine or intended prosecution notice, your details will be passed to the relevant authorities, where we are able to. When this is not possible, we will pay the fine on your behalf and recharge you. An administration fee of £15 including VAT

will be charged for each notice we receive. This charge is payable regardless of whether the fine is upheld or overturned.
UNQUOTE 

KeithP

Insurance_gal2004 said:

Thanks everyone. 

This is on page 2 of the contract;

QUOTE 

In the event that you should incur a fine or intended prosecution notice, your details will be passed to the relevant authorities, where we are able to. When this is not possible, we will pay the fine on your behalf and recharge you. An administration fee of £15 including VAT

will be charged for each notice we receive. This charge is payable regardless of whether the fine is upheld or overturned.
UNQUOTE 

The first sentence in that quote mentions 'a fine' or 'intended prosecution notice'.
You have 'incurred' neither of those.
Put quite simply, that means that Arval have no reason to 'pay the fine on your behalf and recharge you'.

Coupon-mad

Tell Arval to sue you if they think you owe them money because you will refuse all attempts to take money for any private parking invoices and will bounce back all attempts.

To be clear: you won't reimburse Arval for their errors, due to the facts and legal position which is as follows:

- as the Arval term only relates to 'fines' and 'NiPs' which come from authorities (only local authorities and the Police issue fines and NiPs) it does not relate to NCP invoices;

- pretending that the Arval clauses allow them to just pay unjustified and potentially scam private invoices is a misleading action or omission under the CPUTRs, which is an offence for which a consumer may seek a financial remedy in law. The complainant's remedy at this stage is to refuse to reimburse Arval for their wrongful payments but if Arval later attempt litigation, you will counterclaim for a further sum in damages as a remedy as allowed under the CPUTRs, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (unfair and/or ambiguous terms) and the PFHA.

- failing to transfer liability for these invoices is unfair and the reason given is laughable. Of course Arval could easily retain a 'bank details redacted' version of hire agreements, knowing that they may be required to supply the same to a parking firm. Or they could create a redacted copy in seconds when needed. It is wholly unreasonable to use 'data protection' as an excuse to cause hirers loss and deny them their right to appeal potential scam (almost always unfair) invoices from a known rogue industry;

- NCP's hybrid private parking invoices are invariably 'DRIVER LIABILITY ONLY' which Arval could see if they prioritised their customers and read the wording of these invoices properly. There is no claim of 'keeper liability' from NCP on any of these invoices, so Arval isn't (and never was) even potentially at risk, or liable.  Arval are only being asked by NCP to name the hirer, which is what Arval needed to do. Arval cannot just pay the driver's or hirer's invoices out of fear or ignorance of what a 'non-POFA PCN' looks like and means, in terms of whose invoice it is. These were never Arval's business to decide to pay;

- Arval should learn from this error and use it to retrain staff that private parking invoices are not only not 'fines' but in the case of firms like NCP and Smart Parking (to name but two who never or rarely use the keeper liability wording) they cannot hold Arval liable and these PCNs were not claiming 'POFA' keeper liability;

-  this error will not be paid at this complainant's expense. 

Finish by suggesting Arval seek legal advice about the omission in their hire agreements and re the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 wording, if they are confused by the above facts and law. If more NCP invoices arrive now, Arval MUST transfer liability with a simple, redacted version of the hirer's agreement every time.  Of course the hirer would prefer that as Arval's response to essentially fake 'PCN' invoices (any hirer would prefer that, and the right to appeal or pay rests only with the driver or hirer anyway).


(You could even attach a redacted version to help them cope with the rest...).

If they've already taken money from your credit card, dispute it with your bank as unauthorised and 'bounce' it so you get your money back immediately.

That will make them take notice.

Insurance_gal2004

Thanks everyone for your help. I’ll send them an email tomorrow and let you know their response!! Ekkk. 

Coupon-mad

Insurance_gal2004 said:

Thanks everyone for your help. I’ll send them an email tomorrow and let you know their response!! Ekkk. 

Be robust. I wrote it to deliberately be pushy and state the law.  No dumbing it down!

Kim_13

The admin fee is the maximum that you should pay (for their time in handing over your name and address and redacting a copy of your lease.) 

You cannot appeal with NCP even if more invoices are on the way - they will ignore you and continue collecting the money from Arval. Arval need to transfer liability before you can do this.

Insurance_gal2004

Hi all, life has been mental but what do you think of this? I’ve now received 9 parking charges and Arval have paid them all. Anything you suggest changing or editing? Im a tad scared with legal action from them!! 

Dear Arval,

I am writing to formally state that I will not be reimbursing Arval for any private parking invoices, nor will I accept any deductions for such payments. If Arval believes I owe any money in this regard, I invite you to pursue legal action, as I will refuse all attempts to extract payment and will ensure any such attempts are rebuffed.

The legal and factual position is as follows:

Arvals terms only reference fines and Notices of Intended Prosecution (NiPs), which are issued solely by authorities such as local councils or the police. Private parking invoices from NCP do not fall under this definition.

If Arval is implying that its terms allow it to pay unjustified private invoices and pass the cost onto the hirer, this is a misleading action or omission under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs). This is an offence for which I, as a consumer, may seek a financial remedy in law. At this stage, my remedy is to refuse reimbursement, but should Arval attempt litigation, I will counterclaim for damages under CPUTRs, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (unfair and/or ambiguous contract terms), and the Protection from Harassment Act (PFHA).

The failure to transfer liability for these invoices is both unfair and entirely unreasonable. The excuse given - relating to ‘data protection’ - is untenable. Arval could easily retain or generate a redacted version of the hire agreement for the purpose of supplying it to parking firms when required. By refusing to do so, Arval is actively causing hirers financial loss and depriving them of their right to appeal what are, more often than not, unfair or unjustified private invoices from a known rogue industry.

NCP’s private parking invoices are “driver liability only”. If Arval had taken the time to properly read them, it would be clear that NCP makes no claim of ‘keeper liability’, meaning Arval was never liable in the first place. NCP only requested that Arval name the hirer, and that is all Arval should have done. Instead, Arval wrongly assumed liability for invoices that were never its concern.

This situation should serve as a lesson for Arval. Your staff must be retrained to understand that private parking invoices are not fines. Furthermore, companies like NCP and Smart Parking do not use POFA 2012 keeper liability wording, meaning Arval is never at risk of liability for their invoices. In short, these were never Arval’s responsibility to pay.

Given the above, I will not be covering the cost of Arval’s mistake.

If Arval is confused by the legal position set out above, I suggest you seek legal advice regarding the omission in your hire agreements and the lack of proper POFA 2012 Schedule 4 wording.

Going forward, if further NCP invoices arise, Arval must transfer liability correctly by supplying a simple, redacted version of the hirer’s agreement. This is the only appropriate response to what are, in reality, unenforceable and misleading ‘PCN’s’. Any hirer, including myself, would prefer this approach, as the right to appeal or pay rests solely with the driver or hirer, not Arval.

I trust this matter is now clear.

Yours sincerely,