SIP Parking Charge Notice - Leased car

PilotJames

The lessor replied to some of my points which I'd be interested to have some feedback...

1. On the point of the lease agreement being unfair as it removed the right to my appeal and effectively removed any limit of financial liability, they replied...
You have expressed the view that Section xxx is unfair and unenforceable under Unfair Contract Terms legislation. However, I would like to point out that a consumer contract typically involves a direct financial transaction between a consumer and a business. As your agreement forms part of a Salary Sacrifice Scheme and is classified as an employee benefit, it does not constitute a consumer hire agreement.

In that case perhaps the unfair contract terms act is applicable as it places a liability on me that is difficult to carry out.

2. On the point of transfer of liability from keeper to driver when named, they replied...
while it is correct that under standard lease agreements, liability may transfer to the named driver once details are provided, this is not automatically the case with salary sacrifice vehicles. In such instances, the agreement is between the leasing provider and the employer, and therefore the employer's authorisation is required to transfer liability to the employee.

At no point was I invited by the lessor to contact my employer to transfer liability to myself as the employee.

Coupon-mad

PilotJames said:

Appeal notice and payment reminder...

Reply and say: that's your opinion. Just your interpretation. I have mine.  You paid SIP in error at a point when I was already handling an appeal and SIP knew my details. Your staff also unquestioningly paid £115 to a rogue industry just because it was on headed notepaper, when it is common knowledge that private PCNs are capped at £100 and the letter had no evidence.

Clearly your policy is unfair because you'll pay anything on any headed notepaper, as long as it's headed as a parking charge. Your team need retraining.

That SIP reverted to you was sharp practice on their part and I'll now get my MP involved. The documents have also been shown as a case study to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, demonstrating sharp practice by the parking firm (running to you the day after offering me 14 days to appeal) and it demonstrates naive auto-payments by lease firms who seem to think these are fines.

You'll hear from my MP and if you have access to BVRLA ADR I'll also have those details now, please. And in future: transfer liability to me and never just pay a private PCN or demand because you are falling for a scam and I won't reimburse you.

PilotJames

PilotJames said:

The lessor replied to some of my points which I'd be interested to have some feedback...

1. On the point of the lease agreement being unfair as it removed the right to my appeal and effectively removed any limit of financial liability, they replied...
You have expressed the view that Section xxx is unfair and unenforceable under Unfair Contract Terms legislation. However, I would like to point out that a consumer contract typically involves a direct financial transaction between a consumer and a business. As your agreement forms part of a Salary Sacrifice Scheme and is classified as an employee benefit, it does not constitute a consumer hire agreement.

In that case perhaps the unfair contract terms act is applicable as it places a liability on me that is difficult to carry out.

2. On the point of transfer of liability from keeper to driver when named, they replied...
while it is correct that under standard lease agreements, liability may transfer to the named driver once details are provided, this is not automatically the case with salary sacrifice vehicles. In such instances, the agreement is between the leasing provider and the employer, and therefore the employer's authorisation is required to transfer liability to the employee.

At no point was I invited by the lessor to contact my employer to transfer liability to myself as the employee.

Bump......

Car1980

As salary sacrifice schemes form part of an employee’s contract of employment they are subject to the same potential of containing unfair terms as any other contract.

Point 2 would require no such authorisation. The POFA sets out the first condition which is that the creditor must have the right to enforce the requirement to pay unpaid parking charges against the driver. This is enough to alleviate any concerns that lack of authorisation would breach GDPR.