A bit of an unusual one.

[jimfishybob]

Hi all,

 

A friend of mine has a car on a private lease. He's the RK but obviously the hire company is the RO.

 

As usual he recieves an invoice monthly from them, as it's the same amount every month he tends to just open it and file it away.

 

Recently he's noticed he' been going overdrawn for no discernible reason and decided to check through some of his paperwork.

 

It turns out that he's bee recieving private parking fines, (£40 a pop) from a PPC. However, the fines have been going to the leasing company rather than him directly. The leasing company has in turn been paying the PCN on his behalf and then sticking a £17 'admin' charge on top for their trouble.

 

Net result?

 

About £750 extra expenditure in 3 months.

 

Am I right in thinking that this process is so full of holes you could sell it as cheese?

 

Just want other peoples opinion of the situation as I write his initial letter.

 

Obviously it's going to be slightly more complicated as they already have his money.

[green_and_mean]

If he was the registered keeper the 'fines' would be going direct to him as its the keeper that is listed at DVLA.

He needs to check the terms of the lease to see the wording regarding paying charges occured for parking etc.

[Barnsley Boy]

The terms of the lease are obviously important. Does the lease mention "fines" or relevent statutes or does it just say "charges".

 

Were the payments and the admin charge clear from the lease company's returns?

 

Your friend clearly has a little culpability in that he has allowed the situation to continue over a period of months.

 

On the face of it, your friend probably has a case against the lease company for acting outside the terms of the lease agreement. The unfortunate thing about this is that the PPC has the money. I HATE that.

[jimfishybob]

Hi,

 

Thanks for speedy replies.

 

I've currently only skimmed the lease terms but it appears that it specifically only mentions breaches of law, (i.e. speeding tickets), in this case they would pay them on his behalf and then pass the cost onto him. There is no mention of civil charges in the terms as far as I have read.

[GuidoT]

I had a similar difficulty and the lease agreement contained a provision where I indemnified them for any losses arising including relating to tickets.

 

It is normal practise for the lease company to give you the opportunity of paying or defending and if you do nothing then by default they can elect to pay it and recover the sum as a due debt.

 

Have a look here and the posts thereafter.

[jimfishybob]

Yeah, the difficulty is that they only told him AFTER he'd paid it.

 

My original plan was to go after the PCN, is there a reason that I shouldn't? Are they not at fault for not adressing the invoices to him as the RK? In my opinion this £17 admin fee by the leasing company isn't massively unfair.

 

PS thanks for link. Am reading now.

[GuidoT]

The RK should be the lease company, mine are.

 

The £17 charge is a nonsense, why should you have to reimburse them for the administration of a matter prompted by a ticket that is unlawful.

 

I sent the lease company this letter.

 

'We are in receipt of your invoice dated 2007 ref.

 

Initially, we do not accept that the OPC Penalty Notice dated 2007 ref. is valid as set down in our letter dated 1 2007 (copy enclosed).

 

Additionally, we are absolutely dismayed that you have raised the said invoice due to the unlawful actions of a third party, without even any consultation with ourselves and then to compound matters you advise that you intend to take payment by direct debit on the 2007.

 

Notwithstanding that we emphatically reject the Penalty Notice and vehemently deny you have any entitlement to any payment, how you arrive at a charge of £25.00 + VAT for simply placing a sticker on a letter and posting the same to us is wholly incomprehensible.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, you are not authorised to deduct the said sum in August 2007 or in any subsequent months. We are sure that we do not need to remind you, in particular given that you are part of Lloyds TSB, that the direct debit guarantee prevents you from taking such a sum.

 

In the event you receive any further letters from OPC regarding unlawful Penalty Notices, then please do not forward them to us and charge us £25.00 + VAT for the privilege.

 

Please issue a credit note for your said invoice.'

 

You have got little chance with the PPC of recovering the £750, unless you are prepared to commence legal proceedings against them.

 

I would try the lease company and how strongly you can push the matter will depend on the wording of the lease agreement.

[jimfishybob]

I have the V5 and he is definitely the registered keeper.

 

He is prepared to issue proceedings if necessary. I'll be prompting him to follow the UTCCR route.

 

Might nick your letter for the leasing co if that's ok though?

[green_and_mean]

I have the V5 and he is definitely the registered keeper.

 

He is prepared to issue proceedings if necessary. I'll be prompting him to follow the UTCCR route.

 

Might nick your letter for the leasing co if that's ok though?

 

If he is on the V5 where did the PPC get the lease co. address from??

[GuidoT]

Might nick your letter for the leasing co if that's ok though?

 

Of course that is why I posted it.

 

Good point GandM, where did they get the address from? I find it difficult to believe a lease company would transfer ownership of the vehicle to the lessee.

[jimfishybob]

The lease company are on the V5 as the registered owner whereas he is listed as the registered keeper. It seems the PPC sent the letters to the owner rather than the keeper which kind of defeats the object of having a RK in the first place.

[GuidoT]

I see did not even realise the distinction.

 

I have just had a look at mine and I do not see a bit for a registered owner, only a keeper, but I am sure you are correct.

[jimfishybob]

Yeah, the registered owner is usually on the front page of the V5 and the keeper is listed inside. They are seperate, ironically, for situations such as leasing or company cars. It's not obvious though, I only know because I happen to be in the motor trade.

[green_and_mean]

The V5 has only the registered keeper on it section one says 'registered keeper' as does section 5?

 

V5 C UK VEHICLE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT CERTIFICATE#

[jimfishybob]

Bizarre. The one I have here has a different name and address in section 1 to section 5, but, you're absolutely right they do both say registered keeper. However, if you read the bottom paragraph on the link you posted there is a distinction between the registered owner and the registered keeper.

[green_and_mean]

Bizarre. However, if you read the bottom paragraph on the link you posted there is a distinction between the registered owner and the registered keeper.

 

That is the point the v5 is to register the keeper it has nothing to do with who owns it.

[jimfishybob]

The one I have here is a photocopy and I need to look at some more examples at work tommorrow.

 

I think something fishy may be afoot. :o

[green_and_mean]

Usually there are two types of lease, the first is the type were you can buy the car at the end (Personal Contract Plan/purchase) and the second were you have no rights to the car and return it (contract hire leasing). When leasing by the second method the V5 should be in the lease co. name.

[jimfishybob]

I have some experience with both and in some cases the contract hire company will request the V5 in the company name c/o the customers details.

 

However, this is not the case here.

 

In actuality this is a friend of a friend. It seems he heard about my success with banks and credit card companies and thought I might be able to help him.

 

I was just exploring the possibilities on here and it seems he might not be telling me the whole truth or at best letting me think he has a stronger case than he actually has.

 

Regardless, if the above proves true then there is little point in me trying to help him anyway.

 

Thank you both for not letting me make a bigger idiot of myself.

[green_and_mean]

Getting back to the original point the lease co. may be entitled to charge him an admin fee for processing the 'fine' or whatever you want to call it. But it seems stupid that they would not inform him other than by charging it to the bill. If it was a Council PCN he would be losing his opportunity to appeal if they just paid the PCN and billed him do they just assume all their customers are guilty?!

[patdavies]

Hi,

 

Thanks for speedy replies.

 

I've currently only skimmed the lease terms but it appears that it specifically only mentions breaches of law, (i.e. speeding tickets), in this case they would pay them on his behalf and then pass the cost onto him. There is no mention of civil charges in the terms as far as I have read.

 

Sorry, that's just nonsense. They can't pay a speeding fine - who gets the points?

[jimfishybob]

Good point. The speeding fine suggestion was mine. Although having read the terms more fully it only specifically mentions costs arising through legal misdemeanors as opposed to civil.

[green_and_mean]

I would still be VERY unhappy if they admited liability for any motoring offence on my behalf. With CCTV now being used more commonly for enforcement you could end up with a hefty bill at the end of the month and no way of appealing as the lease co. would deal with the PCNs.