Eckolad Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf VCS's appeal was dismissed and the tribunal (a superior court of record) made a number of important findings that I suggest will have an effect on the way that PPC's operate. It really is an important decision for all PPCs. Lots of money will now be leaving VCS-EXCEL's coffers The appeal tribunal held: 1. VCS did not have any right to occupy land or to pursue any action in trespass (which is what VCS had claimed they were doing). 2. Such payments they received by way of "Parking Charge Notices" were not therefore a payment by way of damages and were not therefore exempt from VAT. 3. That on the basis of their standard agreement with landowners there could have been no contract formed between VCS and the motorist because its limited rights to access to the land did not extend to being able to offer the right to park. 4. The signs used by VCS cannot have effect because they have no right in law to make any offer to park in the first instance. 5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist 6. Any parking charges collected by VCS would therefore be, in effective, damages in breach of contract or trespass but because they were retained by VCS they constituted a standard-rated consideration and VAT was therefore payable against them. I believe that this is a noteworthy decision. VCS have had the decision since the 2nd May but seem to have remained thoroughly mute on the subject as have the BPA. One suspects that some amply remunerated legal beagles are working hard on redrafted contracts. One also wonders how the decision will impact on the future payment of VAT. Will it be liable to be paid by the landowner or will the PPC enter into an agreement to pay it on their behalf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Its very interesting to see the lengths they went to in trying to force the trespass issue - protesting in a wood against an airport doesn't seem to be in any way similar to parking in a car park! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckolad Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It will have some far reaching repercussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Sad that it's limited to VAT only and that a Court has not yet held VCS's conduct to be wholly disproportionate and/or unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist So it looks as though people who refuse to pay any so called fines to these companies are in the right as its the landowners responsibility to press for trespass. Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 So it looks as though people who refuse to pay any so called fines to these companies are in the right as its the landowners responsibility to press for trespass. Good! It would be, yes, but a Tribunal hearing a VAT appeal has no jurisdiction on matters such as tort [trespass] or contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 AFAIK they have never tried to pursuer the issue of trespass for the simple reason that only the landowner can do so. They have sued for breach of contract - when these cases are contested they lose. There is a case which went to the next court above Small Claims - this isn't Excel of course but I feel sure it could be quoted as persuasive. OB Services Parking Consultancy Ltd vs Thirlow 10th February 2011 - sum amounted to an unenforceable penalty clause - no loss caused by breach of contract - common discount period reinforces lack of provable loss This was is the first such case to go before a Circuit Judge and thus is rather more persuasive than an ordinary case before a District Judge. Easily found on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 So it looks as though people who refuse to pay any so called fines to these companies are in the right as its the landowners responsibility to press for trespass. Which he can do by hiring a company to press the suit on his behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Interpret Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 i am a bit confused over all this does this only apply to companies like excel etc or does it mean that if i dont pay in one of the council run car parks, a meter on the road or in an NCP car park I dont have to pay any fine they give me as the company issuing the fine is not the land owner? If that is the case then no one needs to pay for parking ever!!! maybe some one can enlighten me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckolad Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 i am a bit confused over all this does this only apply to companies like excel etc or does it mean that if i dont pay in one of the council run car parks, a meter on the road or in an NCP car park I dont have to pay any fine they give me as the company issuing the fine is not the land owner? If that is the case then no one needs to pay for parking ever!!! maybe some one can enlighten me No that isnt the case Private companies can not issue fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.