VCS v HM Revenue & Customs

Trebor16

Perhaps they can but it should always come back to the contract law so it will be back to where we are now.

That judgement wouldn't apply if the company owned the land in question I suspect but then how many PPC's own the land they patrol and send out their "fines" to "offenders"?

HO87

hammer68 wrote: »

what bearing does this then have on the new legislation being brought in where the driver now has to confess his/her crime ??. can he/she still be chased by these ppcs for their horrendous crimes.

I'd be interested in any reference to the legislation you may have the result of which is that a driver "now has to confess his/her crime". There would appear to be something I have missed if this is so.

The immediate and obvious impact is that any PPC registered for VAT who has sought to exploit the same, as it turns out, non-loophole will find themselves liable to an assessment. Some will pay, others may struggle given that the profits will almost certainly have already been spent.

The secondary impact is that many PPC's use a fairly standard model contract. These will have to be redrafted. One can also anticipate that the type of rights provision a new draft contract would have to confer to allow PPC's to operate will be a source of concern to some landowners. It also means that landowners/agents etc that contract with PPC's will be identifiable.

It doesn't change the legislation which is predicated on the presumption that parking charges (as they are currently constituted) are enforceable at law. In some respects the most telling comment the tribunal made is this:

The fact that penalties may not be enforceable as a matter of English contract law, as will become apparent, was not material to our decision

Unfortunately this is what is known as an obiter dictum, a comment made in passing, and carries little if no weight. However, it provides some interesting illumination of what some judges, at least, think of the practices of PPC's and what may await any PPC case that finds itself before another court of record.

AlexisV

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.

It's 'only' Wikipedia, but still worthy of quotation.

peter_the_piper

Thats the DIY ticketing scheme done then if they are doing it and using ppc to collect.

peter_the_piper

Be interesting to see how this works with so called byelaw 14 tickets.

Coupon-mad

give_them_FA wrote: »

Thank you, HO, that is a good find; I have read through the entire judgment now. I think it will be very useful in that the judgment states that the parking company cannot make or enforce a contract with the motorist. Now, whether that will apply to ALL parking companies we cannot say; but it will certainly be another dart to throw at the only company currently trying it on in court, and, unless their contract provides otherwise, should lead to the striking out of all their claims.

I read it to mean that a PPC can only offer the service of parking your car in exchange for a monetary amount if they own the car park or own specific rights to enable them to do so.

Bang goes the theory then for almost all PPCs except the odd NCP car park!

Simon Renshaw-Smith may have to sell a horse or ten. :rotfl:

Trebor16

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I read it to mean that a PPC can only offer the service of parking your car in exchange for a monetary amount if they own the car park or own specific rights to enable them to do so.

Bang goes the theory then for almost all PPCs except the odd NCP car park!

Simon Renshaw-Smith may have to sell a horse or ten. :rotfl:

That is my understanding of it too.

Stephen_Leak

Coupon-mad wrote: »

<snip> Simon Renshaw-Smith may have to sell a horse or ten. :rotfl:

Not with horses selling for as little as £5 at auction, if they sell at all, these days.

I'm waiting for him to publicly throw his toys out of the pram again, this time at HMRC. I mean, who are they to tell him what he can or can't do?

With luck, this should see some of the smaller PPC go to the wall.

And parking charges have always been legally enforceable, You don't pay, say, £3 for an hour. If that's all they come after you for, then that's what you owe. It's when they come after you for £90, that things become unlawful.

give_them_FA

Not to mention a couple of High Court Judges? I mean, what do they know about the law, coming up with an astonishing decision like this one?

Or is the arrogant gentleman now paying the price for publically slating the judiciary?

HO87

The truth of it is that this judgment will not have cost SR-S anything in terms of VAT (though what his legal bill was goodness only knows). He was obliged to pay in an amount to court prior to the original first tier tribunal case equal to HMRC's assessed figure. He has, in effect, already paid the outstanding VAT bill.

We should keep in mind that the case meant that the nature of VCS's interest in the land - at that time - was insufficient for them to form any contract with a motorist. A redrafted landowner's contract will put pay to that but I'd venture to suggest that some landowners/agents will blanch at assigning sufficient interest to a PPC to enable them to offer the car parking. The whole system until now has been such that all PPC's did (from the landowner's perspective) was to manage car park infringement. Now they will have to manage and therefore be responsible at law for the entire operation and that may just make the market less attractive. What about health and safety? What about the Equality Act - that could well be the PPC's pidgeon now - not just the landowner's. This may just curtail the market.

However, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Many PPC's will simply plod on regardless knowing all too well that Mr and Mrs Joe Soap will remain blissfully ignorant and therefore ripe to be exploited.