05-26-2026, 04:32 PM
@tincombe, I think the point you raise is actually an important one, because there does appear to be some tension between the contractual position and the practical way these matters are handled internally.
If the employment contract genuinely makes the driver liable for private parking charges incurred by the company, then in principle the decision whether to settle early or defend the matter ought logically to rest with the driver, because it is ultimately their money at risk.
That is especially relevant where the charge is disputed. Choosing to appeal rather than pay at the discounted stage is not a neutral administrative act if the consequence is that the driver later becomes liable for the higher amount purely because the company elected to continue challenging it.
Equally, though, the opposite issue also arises: if the company voluntarily pays a disputed charge without allowing the driver the opportunity to defend it, then the driver may end up financially prejudiced by the employer’s own risk appetite and administrative convenience.
That is why I think @TheParkingmeister is trying to mitigate the situation informally by persuading the company to absorb charges in cases where liability is genuinely questionable. Otherwise there is a real risk of unfairness in both directions.
Your tax point is also potentially significant. If the company absorbs a liability that contractually belongs to the employee, there could theoretically be benefit-in-kind implications or other accounting/tax consequences depending on how the arrangement operates internally. That moves the issue well beyond simply “who pays the PCN”.
So I agree there are wider considerations here. The core difficulty seems to be that the company’s present system does not sit comfortably with disputed private parking charges, because these are not statutory penalties with objectively established liability. They are speculative civil claims, the majority of which are legally defensible.
If the employment contract genuinely makes the driver liable for private parking charges incurred by the company, then in principle the decision whether to settle early or defend the matter ought logically to rest with the driver, because it is ultimately their money at risk.
That is especially relevant where the charge is disputed. Choosing to appeal rather than pay at the discounted stage is not a neutral administrative act if the consequence is that the driver later becomes liable for the higher amount purely because the company elected to continue challenging it.
Equally, though, the opposite issue also arises: if the company voluntarily pays a disputed charge without allowing the driver the opportunity to defend it, then the driver may end up financially prejudiced by the employer’s own risk appetite and administrative convenience.
That is why I think @TheParkingmeister is trying to mitigate the situation informally by persuading the company to absorb charges in cases where liability is genuinely questionable. Otherwise there is a real risk of unfairness in both directions.
Your tax point is also potentially significant. If the company absorbs a liability that contractually belongs to the employee, there could theoretically be benefit-in-kind implications or other accounting/tax consequences depending on how the arrangement operates internally. That moves the issue well beyond simply “who pays the PCN”.
So I agree there are wider considerations here. The core difficulty seems to be that the company’s present system does not sit comfortably with disputed private parking charges, because these are not statutory penalties with objectively established liability. They are speculative civil claims, the majority of which are legally defensible.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
