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

trisontana

Even if you agree to pay the £90 for the second hour, there is never any means of paying that sum in the car-park. Instead you would receive an official looking document intended to scare you into paying.

give_them_FA

freddy_miles wrote: »

I suspect a slight wording change to their contracts with clients would resolve this matter for them moving forward and also changes to whatever signage and permits they issue, albeit any change would only affect charges issued after the changes are made and in terms of permits can the landowner modify terms of the permits already issued without the purchasers consent ?

That is of course true; however what it would involve is giving the PPC much greater rights over the land; whether or not they would be happy to do that is a moot point.

peter_the_piper

I can forsee a raft of more threatening changes coming in October when the knuckle dragging clampers are seen off.

ps. What happens if the ex-clamper boxes in the victim until they pay, will the BIB still say its a ""Civil Matter Sir""?

System

freddy_miles wrote: »

I am 2yrs away from qualifying yet, then I need my LPC, I want to do criminal work anyway but unfortunately have to do lots of other less interesting legal topics as part of my degree.

So you are still in your fresher year of your LLB? You've still got a long way to go as you are only learning the basics at the moment

AlexisV

freddy_miles wrote: »

I am not sure if they would have to give any greater rights over the land as such, merely express consent that the VCS has sole rights for parking management and issue of permits with full rights of the landowner to enforce charges.

The contract already said that.

taffy056

There is another thing which can be used in specific circumstances, the driver of the vehicle is under the age of 18 so no contract can exist

give_them_FA

freddy_miles wrote: »

I am not sure if they would have to give any greater rights over the land as such, merely express consent that the VCS has sole rights for parking management and issue of permits with full rights of the landowner to enforce charges.
This is way above my knowledge level and I am sure would need full consideration by experts in various areas of law to be 100% watertight, but a person who spends the type of money needed for a higher level VAT tribunal on what can only be described as a 'weak case' initially obviously has a source of funds from somewhere, unless the case was underwritten by some type of insurance policy that companies have for vat and tax inspections.

The issue wasn't about enforcing charges- as the agent they could do that anyway- it was about whether they could claim the charges in their own right rather than for the landlord/tenant as agents. The tribunal said to do this they needed occupation and possession written in the contract so they would be a tenant themselves.

And yes, there is a LOT of money floating around in this industry. More than enough to pay the fees of QCs when the basic ability to continue is at stake.. the owner of this company is on a reputed £450,000 a year.

AlexisV

freddy_miles wrote: »

My view of it, point 12 clearly stated that as VCS had no occupation rights, confirmed in 27 so they could not ever claim an action for trespass.

Yes

I think points 39 upwards are important, The company VCS obviously issued the charges and not the landowner or its tenant.

Yes

If the landowner or its tenant had issued the ticket for whatever and simply used VCS to process the payment then I think the situation would have been different, well, I still think they would have been made to pay the VAT as it is clearly a payment for services and not damages but the contractual issue would not have arisen.

The PPC would become a factoring company in effect, and have to pay VAT on the income.

The payment is from the landowner - so what it actually is isn't the concern of the parking co.

I have looked at another thread on Money Saving Expert about this case and to me this judgement could affect those companies who employ wardens employed by the parking company to issue tickets on land as opposed to those landowners who issue the tickets themselves and use the parking companies to enforce them.

Yes. 9 out of 10 tickets are not issued by the landowner at the moment.

I see the main role of the parking company to be the enforcer and subject to the terms of the contract they have with the landowner can enforce the tickets on behalf of the landowner or its agents as they are providing a service, albeit vatable.

Yes, the contract on the wall would have to form a contract between landowner and motorist, and payment would be made to the PPC - his factoring company.

The problem then of course is the enforceability of the contract and that the landowner would have to make any court claims himself, and he would be vulnerable to claims against them.

The days of companies just signing a contract with a PPC and then brushing their hands of any involvement could be over.

HO87

I believe that it may well be significant that the original post (copied by notts_phil at the start of this thread) has been removed from the Excel thread by CAG.

If the case is shown to be genuine then there are elements of interest. If it is shown to have been mischievous then enough said. For my part I find it somewhat too coincidental in a number of respects but that is probably a product of my being overly cynical. However, I do like being proved wrong. I have reason to believe that we will know the true status of the case early next week.

@f_m You may find the judgment from the original first tier case useful as it fills some of the gaps left in the upper tier's judgment. BAILII

Please bear in mind that there have been a series of deliberately misleading threads placed on this forum particularly in the last year or so. These often start with a seemingly logical argument put forward by a new poster that inevitably deteriorates into a slanging match. The most recent of these was only two days ago.

With the greatest respect you appear to base some of your arguments on perfectly reasonable assumptions but assumptions that are of little relevance in the private parking world. This is not a normal business model but one that is closest to that of the tax farmer of old.

Very, very few PPC's own the car parks they operate from. The vast majority are owned by third parties. To attempt to describe what PPC's do as car park management is to completely misprepresent the term "management" and to misunderstand what they do because what they actually do is very little. The installation of a pair of ANPR cameras at a car park entrance does not facilitate management because all that enables you to do is to record the arrival and departure of vehicles. they have no physical presence in the car park, no marshalling or guidance, and there is no live monitoring of the cameras. The cameras are there simply to allow the PPC to extract a daily report of the comings and goings. Misuse of these reports appears widespread. The PPC exercises no real authority or responsibility in the car park on a day to day basis.

As Martin Cutts' case at Stockport last year amply demonstrates although the signage contains suitable warnings the size of the print and the placing of the signs is such that their content simply isn't accessible. I would suggest that this is unlikely to be accidental. Of particular note is the judge's comments in that case to the effect that the operator's interests lay in enforcement not management. With this in mind the commercial imperatives are such that there is little incentive to deter or prevent. I urge you to read the Plain Language Commission's report on this case and the examination of PPC signs. Click Here (opens as a .pdf)

The relationships that exist between PPC's and their clients are inevitably based on the provision of the PPC's service - car park "management" - free of charge to the client on the basis that the PPC makes its money from the enforcement of arbitrary rules designed and applied to net the greatest return. That is the sole service they provide. Supermarkets have been drawn in fondly imagining that they would actually achieve the impossible - in getting something for nothing - when the reality is that their customers are alienated. Whilst I wouldn't presume to debate the morals of this one could hardly describe it as a normal business model.

Given that the sole objective of the PPC is to make money from the enforcement of arbitrary rules one must ask how it is that the DVLA happily hands over thousands of registered keeper (RK) details per day to enable these companies to make their money? The purpose of Reg. 27 (under the authority of which the PPC's apply for RK details) was to facilitate legal proceedings. One might argue that the contemplation of proceedings is at the heart of all the demands made of registered keepers by PPC's but, again, the reality clearly demonstrates the contrary. There are many PPC's that have never launched proceedings - ever. There are those that do so periodically and, one is tempted to say, simply for the purposes of pour encourager les autres. Of the roughly 1.2 million registered keeper details accessed last year at the DVLA by PPC's at worst the number of proceedings issued runs somewhere between 100 and 200. One could hardly describe that as an earnest demonstration of the PPC's reputed desire to uphold their clients' rights?

There is also evidence to suggest that PPC's are selective in those few cases they do issue proceedings in respect of such that they limit the field to cases where they believe they can obtain default judgments. An investment in a credit check could well yield information on which to make that assessment.

Despite the oft-trumpeted claims of PPC's that their "charges" are based on a genuine pre-estimate of losses, I respectfully refer you to the words of Patrick Troy (Chief Executive of the British Parking Association) when presenting evidence to the Commons public bill committee where he could not have it clearer that his industry's charges have been deliberately designed to mirror the penalties lawfully issued by local authorities. Click Here. Read from the start of Column 104.

Coupon-mad

freddy_miles wrote: »

Let me state in no uncertain terms:

I have NO interest in any person who has received a ticket from a private parking company, council or police.
If you wish to feel I do then thats a decision you need to make but as I will not be giving any advice about a ticket or responding to anyone who asks me about a ticket then I assume its a moot point.

And there's no way you are a 20 year old law student at Pompey Poly either...:p