Do we think there is much of an opportunity that they will not follow due procedure? And if so, does that actually carry much chance at tribunal?
Will you pl confirm, as opposed to us having to determine from what you've posted, who is the registered keeper of the car.
If, as suggested, the car is leased by B, your employer, from A, a leasing company, then there's every chance that any so-called transfer of liability would be botched. But this might not be to your* advantage.
It's a lease and therefore the 'vehicle hired under a hiring agreement' grounds MAY NOT be used, they're for hire agreements of less than 6 months, which this isn't. But let's assume that the authority are idiots and accept reps from the lease company on these grounds. This puts your employer in the frame, not you.
And as your employer isn't a vehicle hire firm then they could not transfer liability to you should they get a NTO.
And while they and you debate the ins and outs, the 28-day limit on payment is likely to lapse which would mean that your employer gets a CC** and you catch the flak.
You will remain a legal stranger in these matters unless, should your employer receive a NTO, they transfer liability to you lawfully. This would be easy i.e. grounds of 'they were not the keeper of the vehicle at the time' supported by your Variation to Contract of Employment(what you posted plus the employer's confirmation of the same).
In order for you to get to tribunal you would need a NOR** in your name.
*- you/your girlfriend as applicable;
**- I've used initials and not elaborated on their meanings because I infer from your first post that you're acquainted with this process.
