Speed awareness course and PCH car lease

Mildly_Miffed

TooManyPoints said:

Online, is says they either pay the fine and then get the money from you plus an admin fee or forward the ticket on.

Not unusually, "online" is talking rowlocks.

The lease company cannot "pay the fine" as they were not driving.

I suspect there's confusion over things like parking tickets or unpaid tolls/congestion/etc - or the situation in other countries.

DocQuincy

Thanks everyone, you answered my question. I do loive this forum — especially the inevitable uselss, sarcastic reply upthread. 😅

Okell

facade said:

... What they will just pay, and then bill you for are parking "fines", toll payments etc. where the keeper is responsible rather than the driver. (I know- it is the driver responsible for a parking "fine" but they won't argue, just pay up and bill you plus admin fee plus VAT.)

So you can't appeal them

Wouldn't any such term in a hire agreement be an unfair term and hence unenforceable?

The term is unfair insofar as it takes away from the person hiring the car their legal right to challenge any parking charges and toll payments etc. through the appropriate processes.

Isn't the correct procedure for a hire company when receiving such charges to inform the enforcement authority that they are a car hire company and to ask for the charge to be transferred to the lessee?  The authority then cancels the charge to the hire company and reissues it to the lessee - for them to decide whether or not to challenge.

facade

Okell said:

facade said:

... What they will just pay, and then bill you for are parking "fines", toll payments etc. where the keeper is responsible rather than the driver. (I know- it is the driver responsible for a parking "fine" but they won't argue, just pay up and bill you plus admin fee plus VAT.)

So you can't appeal them

Wouldn't any such term in a hire agreement be an unfair term and hence unenforceable?

The term is unfair insofar as it takes away from the person hiring the car their legal right to challenge any parking charges and toll payments etc. through the appropriate processes.

Isn't the correct procedure for a hire company when receiving such charges to inform the enforcement authority that they are a car hire company and to ask for the charge to be transferred to the lessee?  The authority then cancels the charge to the hire company and reissues it to the lessee - for them to decide whether or not to challenge.

I was recounting what I learned from this very forum.

However, from the Horse's mouth

https://www.lexautolease.co.uk/help-and-support/fines-fees-and-charges.html

Looks like you tick a box when you take out the lease as to whether they pass parking fines to you or just pay & re-charge (+ admin +VAT)

Obviously, if you have a Council fine stuck to your windscreen you just pay it or appeal it (and win) without involving the lease company at all- saving VAT on the fine and the £25 admin fee.

Car_54

Okell said:

facade said:

... What they will just pay, and then bill you for are parking "fines", toll payments etc. where the keeper is responsible rather than the driver. (I know- it is the driver responsible for a parking "fine" but they won't argue, just pay up and bill you plus admin fee plus VAT.)

So you can't appeal them

Wouldn't any such term in a hire agreement be an unfair term and hence unenforceable?

The term is unfair insofar as it takes away from the person hiring the car their legal right to challenge any parking charges and toll payments etc. through the appropriate processes.

Isn't the correct procedure for a hire company when receiving such charges to inform the enforcement authority that they are a car hire company and to ask for the charge to be transferred to the lessee?  The authority then cancels the charge to the hire company and reissues it to the lessee - for them to decide whether or not to challenge.

It may be unfair, but that would be for a court to decide.

AIUI some parking etc. penalties are legally the responsibility of the keeper or "owner", not the driver. Others may know better.

TooManyPoints

AIUI some parking etc. penalties are legally the responsibility of the keeper or "owner", not the driver. Others may know better.

Any unpaid private parking charges can be recovered from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle, but only providing certain conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act are complied with. These conditions are quite numerous and many private parking companies often fail to comply with them all. This means they can only legally recover their charges from the driver (whose identity they do not know and which they have no powers to compel anybody to disclose). That's why it's important that a RK who receives a request for parking charges does not disclose who the driver was if they engage with the parking company.

I must say I find the idea that a leasing company might simply shell out a parking charge they receive for one of their vehicles without giving their lessee the chance even to confirm it is justified, somewhat disturbing. 

Aretnap

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

facade said:

... What they will just pay, and then bill you for are parking "fines", toll payments etc. where the keeper is responsible rather than the driver. (I know- it is the driver responsible for a parking "fine" but they won't argue, just pay up and bill you plus admin fee plus VAT.)

So you can't appeal them

Wouldn't any such term in a hire agreement be an unfair term and hence unenforceable?

The term is unfair insofar as it takes away from the person hiring the car their legal right to challenge any parking charges and toll payments etc. through the appropriate processes.

Isn't the correct procedure for a hire company when receiving such charges to inform the enforcement authority that they are a car hire company and to ask for the charge to be transferred to the lessee?  The authority then cancels the charge to the hire company and reissues it to the lessee - for them to decide whether or not to challenge.

It may be unfair, but that would be for a court to decide.

AIUI some parking etc. penalties are legally the responsibility of the keeper or "owner", not the driver. Others may know better.

Civil parking enforcement carried out by councils does indeed pin liability on the owner, not the driver. The same is broadly true for bus lane contraventions, Dartford crossing toll non-payment, ULEZ non-payment etc, though some of the newer ones place the liability in the registered keeper rather than the owner.

However there's an exception to the above for car hire companies where liability can be transferred to the hirer, so long as the transfer of liability is written into the hire agreement. Some hire companies make use of it, some don't. A search if the forums brings up a fair few threads where lease companies have simply paid parking tickets, both council and private, and billed the leaser.

TooManyPoints

...though some of the newer ones place the liability in the registered keeper rather than the owner.

Which is probably wise because there is no way of routinely establishing who the owner is. I believe some legislation provides for the assumption that the RK is the owner unless the contrary is proved. Which is another burden which the civil regime places on drivers/owners/RKs which I find intensely unfair.

Aretnap

TooManyPoints said:

...though some of the newer ones place the liability in the registered keeper rather than the owner.

Which is probably wise because there is no way of routinely establishing who the owner is. I believe some legislation provides for the assumption that the RK is the owner unless the contrary is proved. Which is another burden which the civil regime places on drivers/owners/RKs which I find intensely unfair.

There is, though to be fair the assumption that the RK is the owner is a reasonable one. The main exceptions will be the car on finance/lease/Motability scenario where there is a clear paper trail to establish who the owner is, and the rather more nebulous family arrangement where I buy a car for my teenage son which I sort of vaguely regarded as being on indefinite loan to him, but I might decide that he's actually the owner if he drives in every bus lane in London.

Probably better just to formalise liability as being on the registered keeper though, with appropriate exceptions like the car hire company.