Car lease company paid PCN

Coupon-mad

Find another car leasing company because them paying scam invoices blocks the driver/hirer's right to appeal and isn't a fair or acceptable term.

Vote with your feet and tell them why.

You don't just pay someone else's invoice just because "customers weren't paying them and the cost increased"! So? That's not a reason to PAY a scam at lower or higher cost. Flipping heck, the intelligent advice - including from Martin Lewis - is NOT to pay unfair private parking charges AT ALL.

All lease firms need to do is transfer liability. Then their involvement is over.

1505grandad

"Crucially, the BVRLA has successfully made sure that the Code includes the requirement for private parking companies to have a process for transferring liability for Parking Charge Notices for rental and leasing companies. The BVRLA will now be working with both organisations to shape that process."

https://www.bvrla.co.uk/resource/shifting-liability-added-to-private-parking-code-of-practice.html

Coupon-mad

Yeah... and can you imagine how difficult the BPA and IPC will ensure this process is?

No doubt the conversation will go like this:

"Well look chaps, if you really want it and because the Code says we must, here is our new (complicated, time-bound & unworkable) process to transfer liability. However, we recommend that your members should note that it's easier & cheaper for them to just pay all PCNs at the discount, then charge your customer. Do tell the lease firms that we're coming for them and will hold them liable if they 'fail' to follow our process exactly"*

*which we've reinvented to deliberately make ToL hard work, because it looks like the Government are eating out of our hands right now and won't catch on".

doubledotcom

The next step is to take this to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Santander’s letter is clearly marked as their “final response” and expressly gives you the right to refer the complaint to FOS within six months. That is now the correct route to try to recover the £60, on the basis that:

Santander’s process deprived you of a meaningful right to appeal (contrary to what they claim).

They paid a non-statutory, civil parking charge voluntarily when there was no keeper liability under PoFA, then recharged you.

The contract term allowing them to do this is, you say, unfair and/or ambiguous under CRA 2015.

So:

1. Submit a FOS complaint (online or by post) naming Santander Consumer Finance as the respondent.

2. Attach:

   • The Smart Parking letter showing the “account closed/paid” position.

   • Santander’s final response letter.

   • The lease agreement clauses they rely on.

3. Explain that you are seeking:

   • Refund of the £60 parking charge they paid without your consent and which removed your right to appeal.

   • (Optionally) a small sum for inconvenience and any time/costs incurred.

If FOS uphold you, they can require Santander to refund the £60 and, if appropriate, pay compensation. If the FOS does not uphold the complaint, you can still sue Santander 

A FOS decision is binding on Santander, not on you, the hirer. If FOS reject the complaint, you still have the right to issue a small claim for the £60 (plus fee and modest LiP costs), after a proper Letter of Claim. The court may look at the FOS decision as background, but it does not stop the claim.

In parallel with this, you should also make a complaint to the CMA under the DMCC Act 2024. A complaint to the CMA about unfair contract terms/practices under consumer law (and the new DMCC framework) can be made at any time, including while FOS is ongoing.

It does not interfere with FOS or with a later small claim, because it is regulatory, not an individual redress route. If anything, it adds pressure: it flags that this is not a one-off irritation but a systemic practice that is unfair – e.g. auto-paying non-statutory PCNs, then recharging customers who are deprived of a real right of challenge.

Fruitcake

In addition to the above, if Santander are members of the BVRLA, then include a copy of the memorandum from the BVRLA instructing their members not to pay parking private charge notices, but instead to pass the notice to the hirer/lessee or inform them of its existence in your complaint.

kensiko

Hi all

Thanks very much for all the helpful advice received so far, I have decided to take it to the extreme so a little update.

Ombudsman has been contacted with all the relevant information and so far I have received promising feedback after just a couple of days:
"Thank you for the information you sent us. 

We have reached out to the business to obtain some details. 

We’ll reply as soon as we can – and our contact details are below if you need to get in touch before then."

I am hoping just receiving this means a small something, although it may just be automated, as I really wasn't expecting any answer to be honest!

I have also reported them to the CMA who do state they don't work on individual cases so I may never hear back but the report has been submitted with my 'story' whilst also describing this whole process these hire companies offer.  I did add the line offered above "This is not a one-off irritation but a systemic practice that is unfair – e.g. auto-paying non-statutory PCNs, then recharging customers who are deprived of a real right of challenge" so thank you for that. 

Even if it just causes them a few hassles and I get PCN charge back it will be a result (I already have their admin fee), but if there is anything said by CMA regarding the unfair contract terms, now that would be amazing!!!!!

I will keep the thread upto date if/when I hear anything from either FOS or CMA.

Coupon-mad

That's a terrific fightback!

kensiko

Hello all, well it's take a few months, but the Ombudsman has investigated, and it's not great news unfortunately. Here is the relevant part of the response:

"I understand Mr X says Santander’s removed his right to appeal as the relevant authority
said payment of the charge removes the ability to appeal as the case is closed. Looking at the
limited amount of time Santander had in the discount period, I think Santander had two options.
It could pay the fine, as it did, preventing potential further costs for it and Mr X or it
could’ve first contacted Mr X.

I think that most likely, if it had done the latter, it was then
possible that the issuing body might have increased the charge. There was also a possibility of
escalation with Santander’s details being passed to debt collectors or potential legal action. I
understand Mr X believes Santander should’ve taken this option but I don’t agree. I think
it is reasonable that Santander was acting in its and Mr X’s best interests when it paid
the PCN.

I’ve also not seen any evidence to suggest any appeal would’ve definitely been
successful for me to say Santander’s approach has disadvantaged Mr X for example a
parking ticket. This is especially having seen the PCN, including the images taken at the time of
the event, and the PCN issuer’s response when Mr X attempted to appeal."

Obviously I don't agree with this but I feel it's pointless trying to argue the fact. What chance do we stand if this is allowed? Very strange.

Half_way

there was /is no relevant authority involved in a private parking charge notice, there was no fine or penalty.

Tho Ombudsman is less clued up than sharron from southend

Coupon-mad

 I think Santander had two options.
It could pay the fine, as it did, preventing potential further costs for it and Mr X or it
could’ve first contacted Mr X.

No, it had three options (in fact their supposed second option 'contacting Mr X' isn't a thing).

Obviously it could and should have transferred liability to Mr X (i.e. contacting the scammer to give the lessee/hirer's details) which means he gets sent a PCN at the lower rate and can choose to pay or appeal, as is his right. And Santander are then untouchable having discharged any potential liability.

Honestly, complain and point out that the Ombudsman erred by completely missing the workable option (listed on the back of all private PCNs) that costs neither party a penny. Transferring liability as per the MOU with the BPA. And as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (paras 13 and 14). As per the applicable law!