03-04-2026, 12:37 PM
I am trying to see if there are any pressure points you could use to encourage the company to reconsider its current approach to parking charges. From what you have described, you appear to be a conscientious manager who is actively trying to protect the drivers you supervise, even though the final decision about whether to pay these invoices sits elsewhere within the organisation.
The company, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, is entitled to decide whether it wishes to contest or settle a private parking charge. A parking charge issued by a private operator is simply an allegation of a civil debt. If the company chooses to pay it rather than challenge it, that is ultimately a commercial decision open to them.
However, the legal position becomes more complicated if the company then attempts to recover that payment from the driver or employee.
At the moment it is not clear what mechanism the company uses to do this. It may be by deduction from wages, but it could equally be by asking the driver to reimburse the company directly after the company has paid the charge. The distinction matters slightly in legal terms, but the underlying principle is broadly the same.
If the company deducts the money from wages, the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies. An employer cannot make deductions from wages unless the deduction is authorised by statute, clearly authorised by the employment contract, or agreed in writing by the employee in advance. A private parking charge is not a statutory penalty. It is simply a civil invoice alleging breach of contract. If the employment contract does not clearly authorise recovery of this type of charge, a deduction from wages could potentially be challenged as an unlawful deduction.
If the company instead asks the driver to reimburse it directly, the position is slightly different but still raises questions. In that situation the company would effectively be asserting that the driver owes them the money because the driver caused the company to incur the liability. The difficulty with that approach is that the company has chosen to pay the charge voluntarily. If the driver had been given the opportunity to challenge the charge, it may have been successfully defended, particularly in cases where the parking operator has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In other words, by paying the charge early the company may be settling claims that it was not legally liable to pay. If the company then seeks reimbursement from the driver, the driver could reasonably argue that the employer voluntarily settled a disputed civil claim without allowing the driver the opportunity to defend it.
That does not automatically make the company’s behaviour unlawful, but it does weaken the position if they try to insist on repayment. In practice, unless there is a clear contractual term requiring drivers to reimburse the company for private parking charges, the company would likely struggle to compel repayment if the driver refused.
The practical pressure point therefore lies in the internal policy rather than the parking company itself. If the company is paying charges that could potentially be defended and then attempting to pass those costs to employees without a clear contractual basis, it risks disputes with staff and potentially claims relating to unlawful deductions from wages if deductions are made.
That may be the most realistic angle to raise internally when discussing whether the company’s current approach to PCNs is the most sensible one.
The company, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, is entitled to decide whether it wishes to contest or settle a private parking charge. A parking charge issued by a private operator is simply an allegation of a civil debt. If the company chooses to pay it rather than challenge it, that is ultimately a commercial decision open to them.
However, the legal position becomes more complicated if the company then attempts to recover that payment from the driver or employee.
At the moment it is not clear what mechanism the company uses to do this. It may be by deduction from wages, but it could equally be by asking the driver to reimburse the company directly after the company has paid the charge. The distinction matters slightly in legal terms, but the underlying principle is broadly the same.
If the company deducts the money from wages, the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies. An employer cannot make deductions from wages unless the deduction is authorised by statute, clearly authorised by the employment contract, or agreed in writing by the employee in advance. A private parking charge is not a statutory penalty. It is simply a civil invoice alleging breach of contract. If the employment contract does not clearly authorise recovery of this type of charge, a deduction from wages could potentially be challenged as an unlawful deduction.
If the company instead asks the driver to reimburse it directly, the position is slightly different but still raises questions. In that situation the company would effectively be asserting that the driver owes them the money because the driver caused the company to incur the liability. The difficulty with that approach is that the company has chosen to pay the charge voluntarily. If the driver had been given the opportunity to challenge the charge, it may have been successfully defended, particularly in cases where the parking operator has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In other words, by paying the charge early the company may be settling claims that it was not legally liable to pay. If the company then seeks reimbursement from the driver, the driver could reasonably argue that the employer voluntarily settled a disputed civil claim without allowing the driver the opportunity to defend it.
That does not automatically make the company’s behaviour unlawful, but it does weaken the position if they try to insist on repayment. In practice, unless there is a clear contractual term requiring drivers to reimburse the company for private parking charges, the company would likely struggle to compel repayment if the driver refused.
The practical pressure point therefore lies in the internal policy rather than the parking company itself. If the company is paying charges that could potentially be defended and then attempting to pass those costs to employees without a clear contractual basis, it risks disputes with staff and potentially claims relating to unlawful deductions from wages if deductions are made.
That may be the most realistic angle to raise internally when discussing whether the company’s current approach to PCNs is the most sensible one.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
