Response from Steve Clark @ the BPA

notts_phil

I asked them two questions, one about the implications of the VAT ruling and one about FOI information

In answer to your specific questions I will deal with each one in turn;

1 Protection of Freedoms Act - Impact Assessment

We were asked to provide our best estimate in a very short timescale of the numbers of cases that our members took to Court. The research that we were able conduct indicated that 2% of tickets issued were taken to Court and we applied this to the total number of tickets issued (c. 1.8million), and this was then communicated to the DVLA/ DFT on a 'best estimate' basis. As such I don't agree with the contention that we 'misled Government' or that we are 'liars'. The figures following FOI look extremely low to me and we may seek to review them with the MoJ.

2 Upper Tax Tribunal Case

It is our understanding that the UTT only sets precedent for the Lower Tax Tribunal and while the UTT findings may be considered by another Judge, precedent would not necessarily be set. One thing is certain though - an operator must have a contract with the landowner and as shown in the recent County Court case in S!!!!horpe, this contract should contain authorisation from the landowner that the operator may take legal action to recover monies owed following the issue of a parking ticket. Both of these points are covered in Clause 6 of the our Code of Practice.

ripped_off_driver

notts_phil wrote: »

2 Upper Tax Tribunal Case

It is our understanding that the UTT only sets precedent for the Lower Tax Tribunal and while the UTT findings may be considered by another Judge, precedent would not necessarily be set.

Total !!!!!!!!. s3(5) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides that the Upper Tribunal is a "superior court of record" and as such its decisions are binding on all lower courts.

s3(5) can be see here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/3

The decisions of the UT are equivalent to decisions of the High Court for precedent purposes. The binding nature of the decisions of the UT on lower courts has also been confirmed directly by the UT itself.

So nice try, Mr Clark, but no cigar. Whether you were deliberately peddling false information or just being extremely thick we shall have to guess at.

As for the numbers of court cases what a pathetic response. The BPA just took the word of its members, some of the biggest chancers on the planet included, to come up with a figure of 2%. Yeah right. "Yes, your Honour, we did ask the fox about chicken coop security and he said just leave it to me".

give_them_FA

Don't blame the BPA for telling lies, it's what they do. They have no choice given the nature of the industry. They could hardly tell the truth about how few cases go to court without sending the message "don't pay our members, as you have as much chance of being struck by lightning than having their charge upheld by a Court".

Mr Clark has no choice but to mislead regarding the judgment of the Upper Tribunal. That is what they pay him for.

Blame, instead, a Government that blithely accepted this rubbish as being true, when a swift check at the Ministry of Justice would have shown it up for the nonsense it was. Now, THAT is incompetence.

AlexisV

Let's ask a judge in the Upper Tribunal shall we Steve?

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the above matter (VCS v HMRC) the link to the decision is below.

I'm not interested in the VAT aspect, only about the legal opinion/interpretation on what a contracted private parking company can and cannot do.

My quick question is this. Are those opinions/interpretations from this Upper Tribunal appeal decision persuasive or binding on the lower courts, in particular the small claims courts?

Regards

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/...ices_v_hmrc.pdf

I have referred your question to a judge at the Upper Tribunal who confirms that the Decisions of the Upper Tribunal are binding on lower courts including small claims courts.

Regards

David Weight
Clerk to The Upper Tribunal
45 Bedford Square , London , WC1B 3DN
Tel :0207 612 9704
Email: David.Weight@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Trebor16

Nice one Alexis!:D

benham3160

AlexisV wrote: »

Let's ask a judge in the Upper Tribunal shall we Steve?

Wonderful!

I trust you shall be forwarding that response.....

Regards,
Andy

peter_the_piper

You've got to feel sorry for the BPA (well maybe not he he ), no matter what they try they are proved wrong, back to the drawing board.

notts_phil

I doubt the bpa will respond knowing they have been proved wrong.

ripped_off_driver

It's not just the falsity about the Upper Tribunal decision being binding on the small claims court but the way that Clark then goes on to imply that the key issue is the presence of a contract authorising the PPC to take action. This may be the basis of the S!!!!horpe decision but the UT decision concerns the far more fundamental point that the PPC does not have an interest in the land. It will be very difficult to get around this other than by the landowner conceding an interest to the PPC and you can see the lawyers all over that.

Some come on Mr Clark, you or one of your minions are bound to be watching and you need to take heed of this rather than just attempting to lie your way out of it. As things stand virtually all court actions by PPCs are dead in the water. Given that, despite the BPA's untruths, these are as rare as hen's teeth anyway this may be not a problem now but the message will get out that a landmark decision has now ruled virtually all PPC invoices unenforcable. Why then would anyone ever pay? And keeper liability will make no difference whatsoever to this.

peter_the_piper

So, unless the PPC has an interest in the land any claim regarding the Driver/ RK (Freedoms Bill) will be just a waste of paper, just think of all the waste of money spent on lobbying the minister to get the RK responsible

notts_phil

Further email from Steve Clark. He had however ignored me when I stated the UTT was binding which was to be expected.

ndependent Appeals Service(IAS)

I am fully aware of the contention that the IAS may not be considered 'independent' if it is 'run' by the BPA and would make the following points;

* There is an urgent need for such a Service - I am sure we would agree on that. * Government were not willing to establish or fund this Service and asked us to do it. * We have debated the issues surrounding an IAS with key stakeholders including Government departments and representatives of consumer bodies and motoring organisations. * Government have laid down a number of principles for such a Service including 'independent and being seen to be independent' which we are required to satisfy, when we present our plans to them shortly. * We will be seeking to engage one of the existing service providers to Local Authorities -TPT or PATAS to provide the adjudication. * The judicial independence of the adjudicators employed by these service providers and the fierceness with which they would seek to retain this independence, should not be underestimated. * At no stage have we determined that a decision of the IAS would be binding on the motorist but one of the Government principles, which we support, is that it IS binding on the operator. * In launching the Service, we are focussing on process, ease of access, costs and other practical aspects - not on the 'judicial' aspects.