DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 41194--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 17, 2024, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Given Tusker's correspondence so far, if I were a betting man
I'd say them having provided CPM with the required documentation
is a very big 'if'.
>
--- End Quote ---
You were spot on - So when the hiring team was spoken to and
said that CPM refused liability and they will provide with
details
--- Quote ---
> "As discussed, we need to obtain proof from our fines
processing team to confirm the authority refused to transfer
over liability to you.
>
> We will email you to let you know once we have heard back. "
--- End Quote ---
It was incorrect.
Tusker was chased up today and as people mentioned here to get
everything written from Tusker, my friend received the below
--- Quote ---
> Hi,
>
> We are still waiting for a response from UKCPM.
--- End Quote ---
When I saw this I jumped on the phone myself, waited for a while
and then the fines team answered. They mentioned that
1- The fine has been paid already because it is within the T&Cs
and that Tusker reserves the right to pay the fine regardless if
it is local authority or private land
2- This being a salary sacrifice scheme - UKCPM is one of those
that do not accept liability
3- The hirer should have appealed to UK PCN using the permission
slip.
When pressed on number 2 whether they have tried to transfer
liability, they said no, they have a list of companies that
refuse transfer of liability.
I have mentioned that they should reply to the complaint sent on
the 10th of October and state which part of the contract gives
them the right to charge the hirer when it comes to an NTK from
a private company. I have also mentioned that they should
include the next step in case I am not happy with their
response.
#Post#: 41195--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 17, 2024, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This was just received via email
--- Quote ---
> We are sorry to read that you are unsatisfied with Tusker's
management of this fine.
>
> Please be advised, this fine has been issued by UKCPM. This is
one of many parking operators that does not accept a transfer of
liability, this is due to Tusker's agreement with our drivers
being a Salary Sacrifice Agreement, as the vehicle is on hire to
your employer, as opposed to a Lease Agreement which would be
accepted.
>
> As a result of this, rather than making payment upon receipt
of fines issued by these operators which we could do, we attempt
to provide our drivers with the opportunity to manage the fines
directly by forwarding our copy of the notice to them by email.
This was sent to you on 25/09/2024. Please find attached a copy
of the notification email.
>
> In this email, it does explain that transfers are not
accepted, and so if this notice is unactioned and we receive a
second notification for the same offence, the fine will be paid
and recharged to you.
>
> Please find attached a copy of your Salary Sacrifice Agreement
which you signed on 15/11/2023 before the vehicle was delivered.
>
> Under the heading Responsibility, it does state;
>
> 12. Understand that parking or congestion charges and any
other fines are their responsibility and if incurred will be
recharged to them along with an administration fee.
>
> 13. Understand and agree that the Employer shall be entitled
to deduct from salary, or other payments due to them, any money
which they may owe or be liable to pay in respect of the Vehicle
arising from their use of it at any time pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement and the terms of the Scheme Policy. The
Employee accepts that if the Employer is unable to recover any
amounts owing from the Employee by way of such deductions, then
the Employee must pay to the Employer the relevant amounts owing
as a debt and upon demand.
>
> More information on how we manage fines can also be found in
your Driver Guide.
>
> We received the second notice on 10/10/2024, and payment would
now usually be made. However, we have checked online and our
team have not yet made the payment. If you would like to appeal,
you can by using the Third Party Letter of Authorisation which
was attached to your notification email. This is our permission
for you to discuss the fine on our behalf as the registered
keeper, and we have received many refunds and accepted appeals
from UKCPM before. Appeals can be made online.
>
> We have asked our processing team not to make the payment on
this occasion to allow you to continue your appeal, however
please be advised that if we received a third notice, this will
be made and recharged to yourself.
>
> Should you remain unsatisfied with this response, please
contact our Resolutions Team on resolutions@tuskerdirect.com.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> The Fleet Admin Team
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41220--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2024, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Still calling the "fines" shows the utter incompetence of the
"fines" team. I think a bit of research is required into their
claim that CPM would not accept a transfer of liability just
because the vehicle is "hired" to the employer and not the
employee because of a salary sacrifice scheme.
All Tusker had to do was transfer liability to the Hirer,
irrespective of whether it was the employer or the employee. It
would then be up to the employer to deal with the convolution of
who is liable. It would be the employers obligation to appeal or
pass authority for the employee to deal with it.
There is no way that a hirer of a vehicle can be liable if CPM
have not complied with PoFA.
Anyone with the resource or legal knowledge able to interpret
further?
#Post#: 41233--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 17, 2024, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reading between Tusker's jumble of words, what I think has
happened here is that Tusker's have tried to nominate the OP
directly, but as he is not the one Tusker's are hiring the
vehicle to (that being his employer instead), CPM have not
accepted this.
I don't necessarily think CPM are wrong to refuse if this is the
case - if Tusker's hire agreement is between them and the
employer, then they would not be able to provide to CPM the
documents required under PoFA when nominating the OP.
Quite why Tusker's can't/won't nominate the employer instead,
with whom they presumably do have the requisite contractual
documents, who knows...
#Post#: 41241--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the point. Tuskers only have to nominate the employer. It
is then up to the employer as the Hirer to sort it out with the
employee. Tusker are no longer involved nor liable.
If the employer wants to offer a salary sacrifice scheme, they
should make sure that they have mechanism in place to deal with
exactly this situation.
This involves some real breaches of the CRA 2015 that will need
to be explored as part of any remedy for the employee.
#Post#: 41251--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 17, 2024, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Reading between Tusker's jumble of words, what I think has
happened here is that Tusker's have tried to nominate the OP
directly, but as he is not the one Tusker's are hiring the
vehicle to (that being his employer instead), CPM have not
accepted this.
>
> I don't necessarily think CPM are wrong to refuse if this is
the case - if Tusker's hire agreement is between them and the
employer, then they would not be able to provide to CPM the
documents required under PoFA when nominating the OP.
>
> Quite why Tusker's can't/won't nominate the employer instead,
with whom they presumably do have the requisite contractual
documents, who knows...
>
--- End Quote ---
Tusker mentioned they did not nominate the driver as CPM is
apparently one of those companies that do not accept transfer of
liability - but if that is the case, why would CPM then accept a
third-party authorisation letter from Tusker? it doesn`t make
sense, probably a legal jumble here.
Should I still appeal this with the same wording i used on this
thread?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm/msg34623/#msg34623
I`ve just checked and the appeal is still open.
#Post#: 41259--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 17, 2024, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They can't nominate a "driver". They have absolutely no idea who
was driving. They can only nominate the Hirer. Only the hirer
(although not the employer in this case) can identify the
driver.
The issue is that the employee is the day to day keeper but that
is not a recognised term as such. The only realistic way I could
see this being handled lawfully would be if Tusker had
transferred liability to the Hirer (the employer company). The
employer would then have the option to do the appeal or,
preferably, give the employee a letter of authority to appeal or
deal with the NtH in the company name.
The employee would appeal and would, technically, be in a
winning position because CPM would have failed to provide the
copies of the required documents and there could then be no
keeper liability. The only fly in that ointment would be after
CPM reject the appeal (no doubt about this) is that any IAS
appeal is likely to be unsuccessful and that would then leave
CPM pestering the employer unless they accepted the letter of
authority from the employer for the employee to deal with it.
As I said earlier, there are possible CRA 2015 points that need
investigating from the point of view of the employee being under
a contract to purchase the vehicle through the salary sacrifice
scheme.
#Post#: 41386--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 18, 2024, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> They can't nominate a "driver". They have absolutely no idea
who was driving. They can only nominate the Hirer. Only the
hirer (although not the employer in this case) can identify the
driver.
>
> The issue is that the employee is the day to day keeper but
that is not a recognised term as such. The only realistic way I
could see this being handled lawfully would be if Tusker had
transferred liability to the Hirer (the employer company). The
employer would then have the option to do the appeal or,
preferably, give the employee a letter of authority to appeal or
deal with the NtH in the company name.
>
> The employee would appeal and would, technically, be in a
winning position because CPM would have failed to provide the
copies of the required documents and there could then be no
keeper liability. The only fly in that ointment would be after
CPM reject the appeal (no doubt about this) is that any IAS
appeal is likely to be unsuccessful and that would then leave
CPM pestering the employer unless they accepted the letter of
authority from the employer for the employee to deal with it.
>
> As I said earlier, there are possible CRA 2015 points that
need investigating from the point of view of the employee being
under a contract to purchase the vehicle through the salary
sacrifice scheme.
>
--- End Quote ---
The employee will not be identifying the driver. The employee
will appeal as the hirer with the authorisation letter from
Tusker - Am I ok to use the appeal points in the thread?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-broadstairs-botany-bay-cpm/msg34623/#msg34623
I`m just conscious of time here just in case the appeal window
shuts. Thanks
#Post#: 41391--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: b789
Date: October 18, 2024, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whatever appeal you like can be used. CPM will never accept ay
appeal, no matter what. The IPC are also unlikely to accept any
appeal. These are normally won at claim stage where the claim is
either struck out, discontinued or actually won at a hearing if
it ever gets that far.
In this case, after CPM reject the appeal, there's about a 4%
chance of a successful IAS appeal. Once that is rejected,
because transfer of liability has not been properly completed,
CPM will get back to Tusker with a DRA letter and it will then
be up to £170 and the morons at Tusker will simply pay it and
charge it back to the employee.
The only way I see this ending is if the employee takes Tusker
to court for the amount they have charged them due to their
incompetence and failure to follow PoFA for the transfer of
liability.
If the employee is a member of a a union or association that
provides legal advice or they have Legal Protection cover with
their car or household insurance, they had better dust off the
terms and get ready to use that.
#Post#: 41449--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM - Lease Vehicle
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 19, 2024, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I`ve put an appeal forward. Let`s see what they get back with.
Ideally, Tusker should try to transfer liability and when the
transfer has not been done for whatever reason, they should then
give that rejection to the employee.
I don`t understand how come some companies would accept it and
some won`t.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page