Penistone999 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I think so. Would be normal for an appeal from SCC. I'd watch with interest if one of these went up to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I remember a previous judge ruling in one case that a contract can only be formed between the Landowner and the motorist and the parking company had no right to offer parking on the car park they were patrolling . This would explain why the judges have thrown out other cases when the parking company has refused to submit evidence of permission from the landowner to persue the motorist in court for losses . The case is here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70585 Points 3 ,4 and 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I remember a previous judge ruling in one case that a contract can only be formed between the Landowner and the motorist and the parking company had no right to offer parking on the car park they were patrolling . This would explain why the judges have thrown out other cases when the parking company has refused to submit evidence of permission from the landowner to persue the motorist in court for losses . The case is here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70585 Points 3 ,4 and 5 See I disagree that a tax tribunal is binding on civil judges. Some lawyers may argue it is, others wouldn't agree. I fall in the latter camp. I would say it's binding on lower courts in tax issues only not civil ones. As I say, lawyers don't always agree in fact we often don't. Also, binding decisions aren't final. They can be distinguished, basically ignored, by lower courts if the lower court thinks there's a difference in the legal issues. Judge K in Sheffield to avoid using his full name is keen on that one. I still maintain there's no binding precedent yet set and no clear law that I'm aware of. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 09:34 ---------- Forgot to add that I think the various third party rights legislation could be validly argued also. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 See I disagree that a tax tribunal is binding on civil judges. Some lawyers may argue it is, others wouldn't agree. I fall in the latter camp. I would say it's binding on lower courts in tax issues only not civil ones. As I say, lawyers don't always agree in fact we often don't. Also, binding decisions aren't final. They can be distinguished, basically ignored, by lower courts if the lower court thinks there's a difference in the legal issues. Judge K in Sheffield to avoid using his full name is keen on that one. I still maintain there's no binding precedent yet set and no clear law that I'm aware of. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 09:34 ---------- Forgot to add that I think the various third party rights legislation could be validly argued also. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android However what we have now since PoFA October 2012 is a very different system which those of us who believe that the PPC business model is about making money by issuing "fines", can work to our advantage. In my case the PPC failed the bureaucracy of the Act and of the BPA Ltd Code of Practice on at least three counts. This frequently happens. When it does a win at POPLA is a slam dunk. Harder than the "ignore" route, but much less difficult than the "court" route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MobileB Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 See I disagree that a tax tribunal is binding on civil judges. Some lawyers may argue it is, others wouldn't agree. I fall in the latter camp. I would say it's binding on lower courts in tax issues only not civil ones. As I say, lawyers don't always agree in fact we often don't. Also, binding decisions aren't final. They can be distinguished, basically ignored, by lower courts if the lower court thinks there's a difference in the legal issues. Judge K in Sheffield to avoid using his full name is keen on that one. I still maintain there's no binding precedent yet set and no clear law that I'm aware of. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 09:34 ---------- Forgot to add that I think the various third party rights legislation could be validly argued also. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android VCS actually appealed that decision and won: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.html Would you say that a COA decision would be binding on civil judges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Quote: VCS actually appealed that decision and won: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.html Would you say that a COA decision would be binding on civil judges? Not read it as I'm on my phone but yep if there's a CA decision that's binding. Were all the points appealed successfully? Just as a side note, if the appeal was on third party rights to sue, if you go back through the thread I've always felt that was a bad defence. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MobileB Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Not read it as I'm on my phone but yep if there's a CA decision that's binding. Were all the points appealed successfully? Just as a side note, if the appeal was on third party rights to sue, if you go back through the thread I've always felt that was a bad defence. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Its a lot of legal speak which is not my favourite subject (!) but basically I think it says that there is a contract exists between VCS and the motorist and the VCS can sue the motorist (by a parking charge notice) for either breach of contract or trespass and that there is no VAT due on this amount. I think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Ive given VCS plenty of opportunities to take me to court , but not once have they risked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Its a lot of legal speak which is not my favourite subject (!) but basically I think it says that there is a contract exists between VCS and the motorist and the VCS can sue the motorist (by a parking charge notice) for either breach of contract or trespass and that there is no VAT due on this amount. I think.... Indeed it does say that. I've had beer, I'll be honest, but my reading is that the argument in the first hearings was that a contract between the motorist and the PPC couldn't exist, and any monies made by VCS were contractual payments for the provision of parking services (therefore subject to VAT). If they were damages for trespass or breach of contract with the motorist, they aren't subject to VAT. The CoA seems to accept here that:- - There can be an implied but valid contract between motorist and PPC when entering a car park - There is no issue as to the PPC not owning the land. The Manchester Airport case (Manchester Airport acting against trespassers on private land, not owned by them, but licensed to them) has been upheld I have to say, I wasn't aware of this going to the CoA, and I'd be interested to see if HMRC have asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (I'll check in a mo). If not, this is certainly a binding Judgment, as we're out of the tax courts, and into the CoA, which is certainly binding. There are still arguments regarding penalty charges, but I think this is certainly advantage to the PPCs I have to admit. Edit to add - not been to the Supreme Court yet, and not listed in ongoing, so I suspect it's not being appealed. ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 22:33 ---------- Ive given VCS plenty of opportunities to take me to court , but not once have they risked it. It'll be interesting to see if they do now, as they're certainly on the front foot if they do. Will they take more chances? I would with this new Judgment behind me I have to say. Bear in mind also, they have six years to do it. If they really fancied it now, they could go to town with old unpaid tickets. I did wonder, and indeed mentioned many pages back, that I thought things would change with the outlawing of clamping and towing. The law doesn't give, give, give. Give, then take - that's how law works. They gave us no clamping - I suspect they've now taken away many of the defences. ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 22:36 ---------- However what we have now since PoFA October 2012 is a very different system which those of us who believe that the PPC business model is about making money by issuing "fines", can work to our advantage. In my case the PPC failed the bureaucracy of the Act and of the BPA Ltd Code of Practice on at least three counts. This frequently happens. When it does a win at POPLA is a slam dunk. Harder than the "ignore" route, but much less difficult than the "court" route. I think you've got it exactly right there. I'd now personally be trying to avoid Court if I'm honest. The other risk I'd now be concerned about is ignoring everything. Reason being that with one-way costs shifting etc, there's no risk in going to Court, as there's no fees if the case fails, however if you've ignored letters and refused to respond, you're in breach of the pre-action protocols, and are at risk of being ordered to pay costs as a motorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkley Dave Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Thanks for that endorsement Moosey. It is also a lot less expensive than paying the so-called fine! ---------- Post added 26-07-2013 at 05:14 ---------- If you receive a Letter Before Claim, or a Letter Before Action, there is some excellent advice here. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4705657 Make sure you read the whole thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Thanks for that endorsement Moosey. It is also a lot less expensive than paying the so-called fine! ---------- Post added 26-07-2013 at 05:14 ---------- If you receive a Letter Before Claim, or a Letter Before Action, there is some excellent advice here. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4705657 Make sure you read the whole thread. Ive never paid an invoice yet (and ive had plenty ). When i receive one i know how it will play out. 1/ Worthless invoice arrives 2/ two letters reminding me i havnt paid the "Fine" 3/ Letter from their Debt collection office ( bloke sat at next desk) 3 Threatening letter for their so called solicitor ( the office cleaner) Then they stop until they send me the next invoice for overstaying my parking . And so it continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts