BPA still refuse to admit that the hmrc vs vcs decision is binding.

Stephen_Leak

HO87

As they [the BPA] were copied into the original message exchange with the MoJ that ultimately elicited the above reply from Mr Leeves, they could hardly suggest that they have just learned about the judgment. I suspect, as has been suggested on several occasions in the last few weeks that the BPA are either desperately trying to reposition themselves or simply buying time for their members so that a redesigned model contract can be formulated. Unfortunately, in order to acquire sufficient interest in land to be able to offer a contract to park PPC's will have to be granted rights that many operators, such as supermarkets might be reluctant to give or may well not be in a position to provide.

Of course the one particularly thorny reason why the BPA could be unwilling to acknowledge the validity of the VCS judgment is that it goes to the very heart of the "reasonable cause" argument by means of which PPC's are able to access DVLA records.

They cannot simply accept that the VCS judgment creates a precedent and hope that the story becomes tomorrow's chip paper because of that inextricable link to the DVLA and the golden goose its RK data creates. The BPA has to counter this and the way in which, IMHO, VCS squandered their appeal opportunity has left them with what would seem to be an uphill battle.

Couple this situation with the knowledge we now have (courtesy of bargepole) that as opposed to the 36,000 - 90,000 cases the BPA told the DVLA (during its legislation impact assessment) were put through the civil courts annually the reality is that just 845 went to court of which only 49 went to a full hearing before a judge that those in Haywards Heath might just be feeling slightly beleagured.

One would love to have been a fly on the wall during any conversation between Patrick Troy and Simon Renshaw-Smith, post appeal hearing. Especially so, seeing as PT told a parliamentary committee in 2010 that he had full control of his membership. With SR-S's damaging appeal one wonders whether PT would consider eating his words?

BarryRiley

Would someone mind giving me a quick run-down on what all this is about? The original post implies some knowledge already being held on the matter, presumably from conversations on here which I have missed.

Is this related to the recent appeal which found that VCS had no right whatsoever to offer contractual parking on any of its sites through its current contracts with landowners? Is this now accepted 'law' since it was found to be so in the appeal? Is it the case that the BPA are now fighting this?

Thanks guys

ManxRed

You are correct up to the last point.

We are not aware that the BPA are fighting this as such, more that they are burying their head in the sand over it.

The implications of this case are that 'reasonable cause' would appear to disappear in respect of requests for RK data to the DVLA, which effectively leaves the PPC business model dead in the water.

Coupon-mad

I hope Nev Metson is on the case with the DVLA contact over this. Honestly cannot see how the DVLA can still give out data with the 'reasonable cause' excuse when case law says otherwise.

notts_phil

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I hope Nev Metson is on the case with the DVLA contact over this. Honestly cannot see how the DVLA can still give out data with the 'reasonable cause' excuse when case law says otherwise.

Quite I would like to know what their response is

bargepole

notts_phil wrote: »

Quite I would like to know what their response is

Lots of stuff going on with DVLA, several of us from this and other forums are involved. Will post updates as they happen.

HO87

+1

As bargepole says, besides the DVLA aspect other avenues are being robustly tackled as well. For obvious reasons until the results are known there is nothing to say and things are necessarily likely to be fed through as they are received.

Rest assured the relevant authorities have been contacted and are engaged in the process - even if somewhat reluctantly.

Aside from their initial response - to the effect that the VCS UTT judgment did not set precedent - the BPA have so far remained silent although they were very deliberately included in the email exchange with the Upper Tax Tribunal which confirmed that the judgment was indeed binding on lower courts and are clearly aware of that. There is nothing in that judgment for the BPA to challenge - they were not a party to the proceedings - and it would be for VCS to further appeal the decision if they saw fit. However, so clear and unequivocal was the judgment that they would be ill-advised, I believe, to mount a further appeal. Whether there is an opportunity for the BPA to apply for judicial review of any particular aspect of the judgment I do not know at this stage.

Quite how this and the other avenues of enquiry will play out we cannot predict at this stage. It would probably be wise to assume that this might be a lengthy process.