Consumer Rights Act Guidance

Coupon-mad · 3 July 2017 at 6:25PM

Always wanting to help with defences but I think that would struggle, because the Beavis case threw out the UTCCRs, despite the Consumers Association's well-explained protests, and the charge was not found to be illegal.

The Supreme Court's decision was WOEFUL and anti-consumer, and I don't mind voicing that opinion, or who reads this. It was utterly diabolical to move the 'penalty' goalposts the way they did and the decision has actually helped cause the race to court by all the bottom-feeders, falling over themselves to suck money from (and worse, 'credit clamp') ordinary people who were just going about their daily lives (shoppers and staff and visitors to Hospital, etc, not rogue parkers).

How the Judges didn't realise what they were handing to a motley crew of ex-clampers, just shows they were out of touch.

beamerguy · 3 July 2017 at 8:39PM

The Supreme Court held no respect for consumers and failed
to understand how a scamming industry operates

What the Supreme Court did achieve and very well, is that
the lowest courts in the land, the county courts, have been
bombarded with scams and fake claims and a flood of timewasters
using the court as a money collector

That's what the Supreme Court achieved. Everything goes around
in circles. Doubt the law lords ever dreamed of this

Timothea · 3 July 2017 at 10:12PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Always wanting to help with defences but I think that would struggle, because the Beavis case threw out the UTCCRs, despite the Consumers Association's well-explained protests, and the charge was not found to be illegal.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the Beavis appeal before the Supreme Court was to decide whether the parking charge was a penalty. It was already common ground that a contract existed, that Barry Beavis had seen and understood the signage, and that he had significantly overstayed his free parking time. The Supreme Court ruled that the parking charge was not a penalty in common law and that the parking charge was not an unfair consumer contract term in the UTCCRs.

As far as I am aware, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the contract as a whole was transparent, only that the parking charge scheme was transparent (para. 198). My argument is different: PPC signage is often not transparent for a number of reasons, including:

There is no explicit offer of a contract with the driver
There is no explanation of how the driver accepts the contract
The driver is not informed of important contract terms (e.g. the grace period)
The signage mimics council car park signage
The PCNs and NTKs mimic council parking tickets
The term "PCN" is the same term used by councils
Other terms are used that suggest statutory authority (e.g. "contravention")
The term "contract" does not appear in the signage, PCNs or NTKs
The driver is not informed how ANPR data will be used
The driver is not informed how the parking duration is calculated
The driver is not informed how the contract terms will be enforced
The driver is not informed what will happen if any contract terms are broken

(A clear explanation of the transparency requirements can be found in post #1 of this thread.)

The second point of attack is to expose the rampant illegality of most PPCs. The VAT regulations are clear: contractual charges for services are subject to VAT. No question. The Supreme Court ruled that parking charges are contractual. No question. All that is needed is to ask the PPC for a VAT invoice, which must be provided if an invoice is subject to VAT. When this is not provided, use this fact to support an assertion that the PPC is defrauding the Exchequer by not accounting for VAT on its parking charges and claim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies. I can't see any PPC wanting this argument tested in court.

beamerguy · 3 July 2017 at 10:37PM

Timothea wrote: »

The second point of attack is to expose the rampant illegality of most PPCs. The VAT regulations are clear: contractual charges for services are subject to VAT. No question. The Supreme Court ruled that parking charges are contractual. No question. All that is needed is to ask the PPC for a VAT invoice, which must be provided if an invoice is subject to VAT. When this is not provided, use this fact to support an assertion that the PPC is defrauding the Exchequer by not accounting for VAT on its parking charges and claim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies. I can't see any PPC wanting this argument tested in court.

This has been said many times especially by The Deep.
It has been suggested that a VAT invoice is requested but we
have not heard of anyone who has received one.

We are still unsure why UKPC were threatened with a winding up order by HMRC

Anyone can ask for a VAT invoice regardless if they are VAT registered or not. If denied or ignored you have the right to complain to customs and excise.
Maybe this would spark an investigation into the PPC's

Coupon-mad · 3 July 2017 at 10:57PM

Never seen it work (VAT arguments) and I wouldn't try those points on their own in a defence, but you know me, the more the merrier in terms of appeal or defence points that might have legs.

Timothea · 3 July 2017 at 11:44PM

beamerguy wrote: »

This has been said many times especially by The Deep.
It has been suggested that a VAT invoice is requested but we have not heard of anyone who has received one.
Anyone can ask for a VAT invoice regardless if they are VAT registered or not. If denied or ignored you have the right to complain to customs and excise.
Maybe this would spark an investigation into the PPC's

I agree with The Deep and you on this.

Maybe we could recommend the following procedure in the NEWBIES sticky for all disputed PCNs:

Request a VAT invoice from the PPC "so that, as a taxable person, I may account for the VAT"
When, after a short time, the PPC has not complied with your request, cite Regulation 13 of The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, as amended, and demand a VAT invoice
When, after another short time, the PPC has not provided a VAT invoice, or the document provided is not a valid VAT invoice, report the PPC to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud: https://www.gov.uk/report-vat-fraud
Give the PPC's full company name and trading address, and explain that you requested a VAT invoice for a contractual charge but the PPC did not provide it
Also explain that you suspect that the PPC is evading VAT on multiple contractual charges, and that you think this has been going on for several years

(You can report this anonymously, which is recommended if you are not actually a taxable person.)

The more people that report this, the more likely it is that HMRC will investigate.

Coupon-mad · 3 July 2017 at 11:59PM

report the PPC to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud: https://www.gov.uk/report-vat-fraud

I like that idea!

Ruurb · 4 July 2017 at 12:13AM

Interesting thread, I would like to throw my two pence into the ring on this if that's okay.

1. CRA argument - the biggest change in the CRA to previous legislation is that important terms must be prominent. So I am inclined to agree that for some parking signs let's say, some of the terms are so small that you struggle to read them when your standing right in front of it, so I am inclined to agree there may be an argument for that but the real question would be how that affects the contract, or does that mean uncertainty and so no contract can be formed?

2. What relevance is the UTCCs these days?

3. The CCRs - My personal view is that you don't particularly have a leg to stand on unless you have a sympathetic judge and I would think the judgment on appeal would likely be overturned. Assuming you reference the CCRs where payment is made by telephone using the Ringo service and assuming you have already parked up on site, this in my view is an on-premises contract not a distance sale. Specifically, an on-premises is where the sale is concluded on the premises and just because you've made the call on the premises would not make it a distance sale in its own right as the sale is still concluded on the premises. Theoretically if you were able to take a note of the car park information then call Ringo at your home and pre arrange a time for parking then yes I would agree that would then among by to a distance sale and the CCRs would apply. However, the PPC could argue that is merely an abuse of process as the service is not designed for distance sale but actually pay on arrival and so the true purpose is actually an on-sale contract.

Apologies if I'm way off mark here

Ruurb · 4 July 2017 at 12:15AM

P.s as for the VAT argument, you are only legally required as a business to provide a VAT invoice if it's a business to business transaction, again car parking is presumably geared towards consumer contracts so I'm not seeing how this would apply. If they are a consumer there's no obligation to supply a VAT invoice (as far as I'm aware) just like there's no legal obligation t supply a sales receipt.

System · 4 July 2017 at 5:54AM

With regards to VAT, you are barking up (yet another) wrong tree. There is no VAT on damages for breach of contract which is what this is.

Drop the VAT argument or read HMRC v VCS where it was all explained.

There is also another HMRC v VCS case not widely reported which took place in the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal which covers this as well.

And if you want to know what hell is, try sitting in and listening to UT tax cases.

Consumer Rights Act Guidance

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free