Parking Eye v Somerfield Judgment

taffy056

mo786uk wrote: »

VCS contended that the charges were penalities or damages. I don't think the tribunal made a judgement either way. They said there was no contract between VCS and the motorist so it was irrelevant really.

Whereas in the Somerfield case the judge said a cotract had been formed at £37 was not a penalty.

What part of the hrmc v vcs date you didn't understand? You are picking up on piece of the judgement there, what about the whole picture? What about the fact that almost all pcc invoices through the aos scheme start at £100 and the discount cost is £60 , so thereby a penalty? Look at at it as a whole not something that is buried in a 164 page judgement that has been superceeded by the appeal, and the fact that the hrmc v vcs came after both of these.

Coupon-mad

mo786uk wrote: »

VCS contended that the charges were penalties or damages. I don't think the tribunal made a judgement either way. They said there was no contract between VCS and the motorist so it was irrelevant really.

LOL! Irrelevant?! :rotfl:

The whole case by HMRC was brought on the basis that VCS should have been paying VAT on the charges, because penalties/fines are not lawful as far as a company is concerned!

And yes, the judges did indeed say there was 'no contract' between a motorist and a PPC who don't own or have a leasehold or other proprietal interest in the land. Nice clear statement from a higher Court, and binding on lower Courts too.

mo786uk

HMRC won on the basis that the PPC provided a service to the landowner and that was VATable. The contract between VCS and the motorist was not relevant (after it was decided there was no contract in that case). The issue was to decide whether VCS should pay tax and it was decided that the service they provided to the landowner attracted VAT.

They also concluded that as VCS had no contract with the consumer but those set of facts are limited to that case. They do not say there can never be a contract and the case does not actually state anywhere that any sum was a contratcual penalty.

My point was whether an expensive charge could be held to be a penalty which it is often mooted as - VCS v HMRC doesn't address this point at all. The only relevant point it addresses to contractual penalties is that VCS did not have a contract to start with.

In the case of Somerfield they concluded that a contract CAN exist and £37/75 was not a penalty.


If you think the VCS case says VC' charges were penalties then you have misread the case. VCS contended that the charges may be penalties in order to not have to pay tax. But the tribunal did not make any statement on what was or was not a penalty

Basically the VCS case is irrelevant as far as the penalty argument goes unless you argue that the PPC doesnt have the authority toenter into contracts. But where that authority does exist a high charge does not automatically get classed as a penlty.

Coupon-mad

Clearly you are the only one on here with that view and it does get a bit boring to read you keep banging on about this, posting as if your views are facts. They are only your views and you are alone in them.

esmerobbo

mo786uk wrote: »

In the case of Somerfield they concluded that a contract CAN exist and £37/75 was not a penalty.

ZZZZZZ!:( A contract can exist saying someone farts outside my house they owe me £50. However I would have too prove it existed!


This is boring now, I'm owt!

taffy056

How can the vcs case irrelevant ? It basically says that legally the parking company cannot offer terms for parking if they don't have an interest in the land, which a landowner will not give! Dress it up as much as you like, hardly any company has charges set so low, so by your own words it would be penalty. I am also out of here as your obsession in this very limited and there's no point debating with you as you dismiss all other points view except yours.

1. VCS did not have any right to occupy land or to pursue any action in trespass (which is what VCS had claimed they were doing).
2. Such payments they received by way of "Parking Charge Notices" were not therefore a payment by way of damages and were not therefore exempt from VAT.
3. That on the basis of their standard agreement with landowners there could have been no contract formed between VCS and the motorist because its limited rights to access to the land did not extend to being able to offer the right to park.
4. The signs used by VCS cannot have effect because they have no right in law to make any offer to park in the first instance.
5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist
6. Any parking charges collected by VCS would therefore be, in effective, damages in breach of contract or trespass but because they were retained by VCS they constituted a standard-rated consideration and VAT was therefore payable against them.

SodG24

mo786uk wrote: »

HMRC won on the basis that the PPC provided a service to the landowner and that was VATable. The contract between VCS and the motorist was not relevant (after it was decided there was no contract in that case). The issue was to decide whether VCS should pay tax and it was decided that the service they provided to the landowner attracted VAT.

They also concluded that as VCS had no contract with the consumer but those set of facts are limited to that case. They do not say there can never be a contract and the case does not actually state anywhere that any sum was a contratcual penalty.

My point was whether an expensive charge could be held to be a penalty which it is often mooted as - VCS v HMRC doesn't address this point at all. The only relevant point it addresses to contractual penalties is that VCS did not have a contract to start with.

In the case of Somerfield they concluded that a contract CAN exist and £37/75 was not a penalty.


If you think the VCS case says VC' charges were penalties then you have misread the case. VCS contended that the charges may be penalties in order to not have to pay tax. But the tribunal did not make any statement on what was or was not a penalty

Basically the VCS case is irrelevant as far as the penalty argument goes unless you argue that the PPC doesnt have the authority toenter into contracts. But where that authority does exist a high charge does not automatically get classed as a penlty.

Wow - talk about missing the key point !!!!!

I'll summarise it for you so it doesn't get lost in a world of text.

The VCS case, which sets precedence, proved that ONLY the landowner or a party with an interest in the land - i.e. a lease - can form a contract with the driver. No if's, but's or maybe's. That means PPCs that neither own the land nor have a lease can issue charges, "penalties" or take court action against the driver. SIMPLES.

bargepole

SodG24 wrote: »

... That means PPCs that neither own the land nor have a lease can issue charges, "penalties" or take court action against the driver. SIMPLES.

This is correct, but it won't stop the PPCs putting fake tickets on cars, knowing that a high percentage of the sheeple will pay up on the ticket, or when the threatening letters start to arrive.

It's only when they try to enforce in court that it comes unstuck, and the more sensible PPCs never (or hardly ever) go down that route.

devonlad

Morning all. Are tps parking solutions banned from dvla ?

mo786uk

On the facts of this case we do not consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a contract between it and the motorist. VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its
limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS.

---

Read it carefully and you will see that the case is not the be all and end all and (quite seperatley from the right to take action for the tort of tresspass) it is possible to enter into contracts (as long as the contract with the landowner is tight enough). It seems that VCS failing in this case was not having a proper contract with the landowner.

It is a leap to say the first section which talks about tresspass and limited rights to the PPC applies to the second part about contracts. Torts and contracts are distinct.

I dont think you need the same legal rights of possesion to offer and sue on a contract as you do to sue for tressspass. The judgement implies as much.