PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help approaching my employer., They auto paid FCN, but i bought a ticket to park.
WhiteVanMan2000
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 17:32
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



Hey, hoping I can get some advice/help on my situation. Google search results has been limited my end.

The company i work for has been asked to pay Napier Parking £50. The vehicle is driven nearly only by myself, and leased from another company. Said company passed request onto my employer who auto paid. They are deducting £50 + £10 admin fee from my salary at the end of the month.

I'm 99% sure I bought a ticket upon arriving using my change pot, the machine was literally next to the van (right hand side of pic). I've found the location on Google, and am in the area tomorrow, so can check the allowed time for a 50p ticket. I claim parking back on expenses at the end of the month so it's not like I'm gaining anything.

I have included purchased ticket and part of the payment request as a picture.

I contacted Napier Parking via their auto mated phone service to pretend to pay the £50, it gave a response of already paid.

My employer (Human Resources person) said I have to contest then they will get a refund and then refund me. My contract used to state about liability of van fines etc, but my current contract doesn't state anything upon looking.

Also as we all know contacting these companies is extremely difficult.

I don't recall picking the ticket off the floor of the van, or it sliding down somewhere where it couldn't be viewed. However the pictures are such low resolution- i'm clueless to the cause. Because of the nature of my mobile job I always have a change pot in my van.


Any help or advice is truly welcomed and appreciated. smile.gif


Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


This post has been edited by WhiteVanMan2000: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 17:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 17:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 20:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Not displaying a PDT sounds like it flipped over.

With Napier send an appeal in your own words, written as if you were writing to someone reasonable, explaining what happened and that the company paid but have asked you to appeal for a refund under the circumstances. Attach a copy of the ticket and state what you just said to us, that you paid immediately from your van's change pot and displayed the ticket so you have no idea what the charge is for.

Napier appeals are a different 'animal' than others. Say it like it was. See what you get back as an answer.

NEWBIE WARNING - THIS IS SPECIFIC TO NAPIER! THIS IS NOT NORMAL ADVICE FOR AN APPEAL TO A PPC!

In the meantime, ask the HR person for the section in your employment contract that allows them to do just pay this, instead of passing it to you to pay or appeal. Show us the wording HR show you. If it talks about penalties and 'fines' from 'authorities' this is neither a fine nor an authority. Please don't assume and say the wording covers it...we doubt it! No assumptions.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 20:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 03:17
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,641
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 7 Sep 2017 - 21:36) *
In the meantime, ask the HR person for the section in your employment contract that allows them to do just pay this, instead of passing it to you to pay or appeal. Show us the wording HR show you. If it talks about penalties and 'fines' from 'authorities' this is neither a fine nor an authority. Please don't assume and say the wording covers it...we doubt it! No assumptions.

Absolutely this.

Napier will almost certainly claim to use the contractual model (if you park like 'THIS' (whatever this may mean) you agree to pay.....) which means all this was was an invoice for parking in a way other than 'normal', 'premium parking' if you will.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 16:25
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



Many thanks for the quick replies.

I went to the parking site today, paid for a ticket, took a photo of the machine/times board and went to the nice bakery there happy.gif (i think that's how i remember the place!)

Ticket time is a minimum 30mins @ 50p. So covered there.

Here's the interesting bit, (I always reverse park), I'm walking back to my van and see no ticket on the dash... Bearing in mind i'm slightly over 6' tall and within a good few metres of the van. Turns out there's a slight recess in a Transit Custom's dash, that also faces slightly away from the windscreen. Ahah, here is where i put the ticket last time as my change pot is in the passenger side door. Take a look at the pictures given, on the right hand side (it may just be me) but can you see a very faint white line? -that'll be the ticket. Looking through the side windows you'd see the ticket extremely easily.

I really think this is the case here.

Onto the contract. In the newest (2017 version) driver's hand book i pulled this out (see picture below). The guy who's name and signed on it is a very reasonable guy, or so it has seemed in the past, so contacting him directly if needed is an option.

(blanked out company name)

Attached Image



I'll refrain from writing the letter/ contacting HR this weekend as i'm not sure if this changes anything?


Once again, many thanks for taking the time to read and advise.

This post has been edited by WhiteVanMan2000: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 16:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 8 Sep 2017 - 17:22
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,416
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



That changes nothing.

Napier cannot issue 'fines.' They are the exclusive preserve of statutory bodies. This was not a 'traffic or parking offence.' Again, offences can only be dealt with by statutory bodies.

As per SRM and Rookie, this is merely a speculative invoice based on a contractual model. Your HR dept are in error having a) paid it without giving you the chance to challenge it and, b) to be unlawfully deducting it from your salary.


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 08:05
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,641
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In addition you are required to pay and it only states if they HAVE to pay, as they could simply name the driver to remove all liability they did not HAVE to pay, so on that basis they have no grounds to try and reclaim the money from you either.

Various fleet organisations publish advice on this such as BVRLA ( http://www.bvrla.co.uk/ ) if you can find their policy and add it to your complaint it would help.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 08:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Looking at that fixed charge notice it looks as though it was the notice to hirer. If there was a windscreen ticket then the whole process was started too early. If not then they acted darn quick to get that notice to hirer out.

Ask HR if there was any other paperwork with the Notice to Hirer. What is required is detailed in 14 (2) (a) of POFA:

the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

If there was not (and there probably was not) any of the additional paperwork you can point out to HR that there was no liability for the charge anyway as Napier have not followed the correct procedure and there would be no reason to make a payment. That's in addition to the other points given previously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 10:59
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



I've sent a letter to Napier parking now with my personal details.


I've not contacted HR yet as am unsure on this wording (bolded) in the driver's handbook. *company name removed*

QUOTE
The employee is personally responsible for the payment of all fines or penalises incurred for traffic and parking offences. These amounts may not be reclaimed as expenses. Any sums that *company* has to pay for offences committed by the employee, or authorised driver, may be deducted from the employee's salary, or from any other sums due from *company* to the employee and as admin charge will apply.


It's just that "sum due" is a really fishy statement. And i want all the ammo i can if i'm going to fire off at HR. I don't doubt you guys are right, i just need it clear and understood in my head.




It looks like the lease company isn't a member of BVRLA under their Membership Directory. And looking through the BVRLA policies there's no mention of IPC, only the BPA. I'm confused in regards to policies as they are not laws and neither members?




Many thanks smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 11:12
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (WhiteVanMan2000 @ Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 11:59) *
I've sent a letter to Napier parking now with my personal details.


I've not contacted HR yet as am unsure on this wording (bolded) in the driver's handbook. *company name removed*

QUOTE
The employee is personally responsible for the payment of all fines or penalises incurred for traffic and parking offences. These amounts may not be reclaimed as expenses. Any sums that *company* has to pay for offences committed by the employee, or authorised driver, may be deducted from the employee's salary, or from any other sums due from *company* to the employee and as admin charge will apply.



That was a silly thing to do, outing yourself as the driver. or did you tell them you were the keeper? If the Notice to Hirer was sent out in the same way that most PPCs do (no supporting documents) then there would be absolutely no keeper liability and your company have paid something that was not necessary. If they now know the driver's name then there is no chance of reclaiming that money from them,.

That excerpt from the handbook is talking about fines, penalties and offences. The notice that was received from Napier was none of those, a speculative invoice as has been pointed out. and to continue to deduct from your salary after this has been pointed out would be unlawful. It is not your fault that HR have paid paid an invoice in error when there was no liability.

The other sums due could be referring to things like expenses or bonuses.

Membership of the BVRLA is irrelevant.

This post has been edited by ostell: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 11:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 14:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Exactly WHAT did you tell Napier??

We never said to ID the driver, just the Hirer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 15:14
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



Apologies, but i am really confused now.

The vehicle owner had passed the FCN onto the vehicle keeper, to which they paid. I don't understand how I was supposed to contact Napier, explain the situation and expect a reply without admitting liability. Unless i was writing in 3rd person explaining that somebody had done so, but that wasn't clear to me sadly.

I also don't follow why Napier would refund my company in any respect as giving them money is merely just that, giving them money.



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (WhiteVanMan2000 @ Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 11:59) *
snip


The other sums due could be referring to things like expenses or bonuses.


But equally could be from sums such as this? The FCN does say a sum is due. Whether it's a request, threat or legal binding contract would be different from how i understand it.




Any further information is welcomed for my own peace of mind and also other readers that may arrive at similar circumstances.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 15:53
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



This is a real mess brought about by the inefficiency, ignorance and incompetence of HR. The FCN (strictly speaking they are not allowed to call it that as it is impersonating an official document) contains so many errors that there was no way that the hiring company, your company, could be held responsible for the alleged actions of the driver.

Have you looked at the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 yet? They have to comply with all the requirements to hold the keeper liable. It all starts with paragraph 8 for a windscreen ticket and then paragraph 9 if therre was not. As this was a hired vehicle it then continues on to paragraph 13 & 14.

It is insufficient for your employer to act on the copy of the FCN that the hire company forwarded on to them, they should have waited for their very own copy which also contain the items proscribed in 14 (2) (a). If Napier did not comply then they cannot claim from the keeper, only the driver, who they do not know. If your HR department was the least bit of proficient and done their job properly then they would have told Napier to Bogoff if those documents weren't there.

Napier are very unlikely to repay the amount paid, especially as they know who the driver was. There was a very good chance that the charge would not need to be paid but your HR department have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.

You should not have to pay for the incompetence of your HR department. Send them a copy of POFA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 16:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I also don't follow why Napier would refund my company in any respect as giving them money is merely just that, giving them money.


They might do, because it's Napier and Mr de Savary likes to protest they consider appeals properly.

You committed no ''offence'' and there was no ''fine/penalty'' that HR ''had to'' pay.

They should have just named you as the lessee/hirer or day to day keeper, and transferred liability with one letter. Easy for any fleet manager to understand. They denied you a right to deal with it, using t&cs that do not cover a private company charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 17:30
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



Hello all.

I've done some digging and the reading.

It appears Napier (to my understanding) have fulfilled the POFA.

Attached Image

Attached Image


There's a few things i wasn't sure on POFA, as they likely weren't provided.
Hire Vehicles (13) sub para (3)

However is that relevant now given my company has paid the demand.

The entire document i got was literally the Notice to Hirer, Notice to Keeper, and Transfer of Liability (lease company).

I sent the POFA link to the fleet manager and asked for all and any additional paperwork they received, i received a response within 11 minutes. -clearly having not read the document. But do have the apparently full documentation.


The last 2 emails from the fleet manager quoted below just to show uninterested they are. (i also sent one before hand querying this problem saying i don't blame anyone for any mistakes as it does happen and that i'm just frustrated by it. Among that Napier haven't responded to me or have any contact details except written letter).

QUOTE
[company name] paid the amount stated letter as it pays chargers on behalf of drivers as stated in the handbook.

If you want to dispute the charge you will have to speak to the people issued the fine and we wouldn’t be able to do this on your behalf.


QUOTE
If the parking company fail to respond what is [company name] stance on that?



Below response has the HR manager copied in. So it's just getting silly.
QUOTE
The dispute is between yourself and the company who gave you the fixed charge notice not [company name].



If this makes any difference...

The parking charge is listed on my payslip as parking fine.
Previous emails always list the charge as parking fine when they reference it.






Do i have much of a leg to stand on currently? I am prepared to take it all the way with this company and i've already had interviews and such about other jobs etc and my supervisor and previous manager are happy to give me stella references as they know how much of a bully this company is.



Thanks in advance biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 21:28
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes, this was not a parking fine !!!! The dispute is between you and your employers for paying an invoice for which they were not liable as it wasn't a fine. It was an unlawful deduction from salary.

Are your management so thick that they don't know the difference between an invoice and a fine? So you now have all the documentation. Notice to Hirer, Notice to Keeper and did you get the copies of the signed portions of the rental agreement?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 22:02
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



I'd say they're ignorant rather than thick.
Although one does question in this company laugh.gif

I will ask for the rental agreement tomorrow, and if they refuse?


Thanks for the speedy reply also happy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 07:07
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Napier will not give you any money back once paid, you did not have the chance to appeal, and probably win, the alleged charge therefore your company should not be charging you for the error of your ways. Since you have not had contact with Napier how can you appeal.

The reason I mentioned additional paper work was mentioned in POFA 14 (2) (a), that are specified in 13 (2).

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
©a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


If they are not there then there is no keeper liability under POFA and they can be told to bogoff. This requirement is often missed by the parking companies, even PE. No doubt nobody in your company realised this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteVanMan2000
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 16:36
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 6 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,889



Apologies that you had to repeat yourself Ostell. I was curious about the named driver bit hence my post before.

However i've read it all through again, possibly and hopefully the last bloody time. I think i have a good grasp of it now, and it's implications.

HR Director has passed the info onto some other manager i've never even heard of, so likely quite high up. And seemed very apologetic in the last email. I also put forward they were in breach of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Hopefully this doesn't escalate any further and i can send you through some beer monies soon to say thanks biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 16:49
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 460
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



It seems to me that this is not really a parking issue.

Insofar as you are concerned, the PPC appears to have done nothing wrong. The PPC has merely sent an invoice to your employer which your employer has decided to pay.

It is your employer who has wronged you. Your employer has made a deduction from your pay which it should not have made. So, instead of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Data Protection Act 1998, which often come into play in parking cases, it appears to be the Employment Rights Act 1996 which relates to your particular case.

If you are a member of a trade union, ask them for help in getting the money back from your employer. If not, try googling for an employment rights forum or contact your Citizens Advice Bureau.

Sorry, obviously not quick enough when using my iPhone.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 16:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 16:59
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,210
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As part of the process the Notice to Keeper goes to the registered keeper. As this is a leasing company they get out of liability by naming the hirer (in this case your company) and sending copies of the lease documents to the parking company. The parking company then send a notice to hirer to the entity named by the lease company (your company) together with the copies of portions of the lease document that were sent by the lease company. If those additional pieces of paper are not sent by the parking company when they send the notice to hirer then the hirer can not be held liable.

What you want to know from your company is if the documents I quoted in post #17 were received from Napier at the same time as they received the notice to hirer/keeper. If they were not then your company had no liability for the charge.

If all the required documents were there (which would be unusual) then the company should simply have written to the parking company giving your name as the keeper of the vehicle as they do not know who was driving at the time and then the parking company send you another notice to keeper in your own name.

Long winded I know but if someone is handling hire cars at your company then they should be aware of POFA etc. Perhaps print it out and send them a copy for reference.

Even if this was an offence which warranted a fine it is not natural justice that they just pay it and collect from employees when many of these things can be overturned on appeal.

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 17:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 24th June 2018 - 22:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.