vcs/excel get their !!!!!! kicked

taffy056

freddy_miles wrote: »

I would 100% agree a person should be aware of any terms before entering into the contract, there are certain examples of legal authority that state acceptance should always be dealt with on an objective basis as opposed to a subjective bases and I suspect in the world of parking then if there was 1 sign covering 20spaces in a dark car park then this would be judged differently to a car parking in front of a sign less than a couple of metres away in total daylight.

You will find that a lot of car parks have a sign on entrance, where you can't really read the terms and conditions of said car park and are unlikely to even see the sign as its on the opposite side of you driving, and that is it.

If you are not a PPC troll on here and are who you say you are, perhaps you could look at this side of the law which these companies try to exploit, they are on thin grounds, they know this as practically no cases ever go to the small claims.

Perhaps you can go to this thread to see what outlandish threats these companies make, they use debt collectors, when there is no legal debt owing, and fake solicitors called Graham White who are in fact are a debt collector called Roxburghe using letter headed paper to force people to pay, they are being investigated by the SRA by the way.

Before you do anything else, educate yourself on these companies who routinely break the law, and are not taken to task over it as the people who can really effect these companies make about £3m a year from the scam, they are called the DVLA by the way!

trisontana

There are lots of examples of PPC trying to fool people into thinking they are some sort of official body. This includes using the same "offence" codes as used by councils, the infamous wording "It is an offence for unauthorised persons to remove this document" on ticket envelopes and the use of company names which look official. Below is a list:-

Civil Enforcement Limited
Central Ticketing
Car Parking Partnership
MET
National Clamps
UKCPS (Crown Prosecution Service?)
UK Parking Patrol Office
Parkforce
Legal Parking Enforcers
Valid Parking
National Parking Management
County Parking Enforcement Agency

Plus two debt collectors:-

Court Proceedings Ltd
Judges Demand.

AlexisV

freddy_miles wrote: »

I read that case to be very specific in that The landowner issued permits to the motorist and employed VCS to manage the car park and as the contract and right to park was granted by the landowner then VCS had no party to this.

It also looked at two other 'contraventions' - parking without displaying a valid blue badge, and parking outside bay markings.

AlexisV

freddy_miles wrote: »

Firstly the upper tax tribunal is not binding or persuasive on the civil courts, in the same way an an appeal by a circuit judge is not.

No. The lower tax tribunal is not binding, whereas the upper tribunal is.


Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:

3. The First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal

(1)There is to be a tribunal, known as the First-tier Tribunal, for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it under or by virtue of this Act or any other Act.
(2)There is to be a tribunal, known as the Upper Tribunal, for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it under or by virtue of this Act or any other Act.
(3)Each of the First-tier Tribunal, and the Upper Tribunal, is to consist of its judges and other members.
(4)The Senior President of Tribunals is to preside over both of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
(5)The Upper Tribunal is to be a superior court of record.

give_them_FA

Look, he didn't get off to a good start, and I was the first to accuse him, but I will stick my neck out and say that I think Freddy is what he says he is. The only unanswered question buddy is how did you find your way to our little backwater in the first place?

bargepole

freddy_miles wrote: »

UTCCR is a strange one that in my view is not relevant.
When I qualify I may have a standard charge of £500 per hour, well I wish, but that would not be individually negotiated but stated on my general terms and conditions my partner for example in the same firm with same qualifications only charge £50 per hour.
A member of the public engages me and I bill him correctly for 2hours work, I could not see any argument he could raise that my fees are excessive or unfair despite not negotiating with him personally....

Quite right. But, if your terms and conditions also stated that there would be a penalty of £5000 if your bill wasn't settled within 14 days for example, this would most likely be considered a breach of UTCCR and therefore unlikely that a judge would uphold this in a court claim.

This kind of disproportionate penalty charging is, in effect, what most PPCs are trying to do, eg parking costs £1 for up to 2 hours, £90 penalty thereafter.

trisontana

give_them_FA wrote: »

Look, he didn't get off to a good start, and I was the first to accuse him, but I will stick my neck out and say that I think Freddy is what he says he is. The only unanswered question buddy is how did you find your way to our little backwater in the first place?

And I hope we can educate you about the devious and misleading way most private parking companies operate. It can all be summed up in one phrase - "impersonation of authority".

trisontana

The "long term objective" was just to screw as much money as possible from the motorist for breaking their silly rules. The whole PPC business model is not effective car-park management but a cash-cow.

give_them_FA

The problem for them (as I understand it) was that they have never paid VAT on their "invoices" as they claimed them to be damages. This is historic and you will see the case encompasses some years. The HMRC challenge was that they were not damages because they had no rights, under the terms of their contract with the landowner, to claim anything from the driver in their own behalf. As they (mis) manage a large number of car parks, this one was probably just brought as a test case.

The Tribunal held that as they could not claim damages themselves, anything they claimed in their invoices was for the benefit of the landowner and not them. If the landowner then notionally paid those damages to VCS, then they were no longer damages, but a fee to VCS and therefore subject to VAT. I may be wrong because really we have no interest in the tax side of it other than to laugh at the company getting stung. What is useful to us is the ruling that the PPC cannot form a contract with the motorist and therefore any sign purporting to do so is void. Really that is the only aspect of the judgement we are concerned with!

give_them_FA

freddy_miles wrote: »

If the case would have gone their way, then the charges would have been penalties and as penalties are not enforceable so any future case would not have been argued in any other way, yes they would have saved short term VAT but longer term seems like commercial suicide.

What you have reckoned without, Freddy, is the lack of honesty of the companies involved. The vast majority of the charges they actually collect are paid without demur by the victims because they do not know the law and are misled into believing that they ARE enforceable.

It is only where the PPC is silly enough to try a court case (and this is something like 1 in 10,000 of non payers) that the issue raises its head.