We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
VCS Ltd v HMRC - Court of Appeal on 4th or 5th May 2013
BASFORDLAD
Posts: 2,418 Forumite
Posted from CAG:
VCS Ltd v HMRC: Application pending to Court of Appeal
As many on here will know, HMRC found that Vehicle Control Service Ltd ( a company owned by Mr Simon Renshaw-Smith) were liable to pay VAT from 04/05 to 10/09 on parking charges collected from motorists.
VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the First Tier Tax Tribunal and attempted to argue that VAT was not payable as the charges were either “damages for breach of contract” or “damages for trespass"
The Tribunal found against them and ruled that VCS Ltd (and, by implication...all other private parking companies) had no authority to issue a charge in the first place as VCS Ltd had no occupational right to the land that they patrolled and consequently; could not enter into a contract with the driver.
They ruled that monies received from motorists by VCS Ltd were in fact “services to the landowner” with whom VCS Ltd had a contract to provide parking control services. It was made clear from the First Tier Tribunal that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist.
VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Tax & Chancery Chamber) where the case was considered on 6th March 2012 before Judge Roger Berner and Judge Nicholas Aleksander. They concluded that the First Tier Tribunal has been correct in that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist and as a consequence, VCS Ltd had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists who parked in breach and accordingly, that the penalty charges did not constitute damages.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Firstly it should be noted that the Upper Tribunal was established under Section 3 of the TCE Act 2007 as a Superior Court of record and accordingly, its decisions establish precedents which are bindings on lower courts.
Yesterday, a “little birdie” informed me that VCS Ltd have appealed the Upper Tribunals Order dated 2nd May and the matter is now listed at the Court of Appeal on 4th or 5th May 2013. Closer to the date one of these two dates will fall away.
The case has been listed with a time estimate of 4 hours.
VCS Ltd v HMRC: Application pending to Court of Appeal
As many on here will know, HMRC found that Vehicle Control Service Ltd ( a company owned by Mr Simon Renshaw-Smith) were liable to pay VAT from 04/05 to 10/09 on parking charges collected from motorists.
VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the First Tier Tax Tribunal and attempted to argue that VAT was not payable as the charges were either “damages for breach of contract” or “damages for trespass"
The Tribunal found against them and ruled that VCS Ltd (and, by implication...all other private parking companies) had no authority to issue a charge in the first place as VCS Ltd had no occupational right to the land that they patrolled and consequently; could not enter into a contract with the driver.
They ruled that monies received from motorists by VCS Ltd were in fact “services to the landowner” with whom VCS Ltd had a contract to provide parking control services. It was made clear from the First Tier Tribunal that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist.
VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Tax & Chancery Chamber) where the case was considered on 6th March 2012 before Judge Roger Berner and Judge Nicholas Aleksander. They concluded that the First Tier Tribunal has been correct in that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist and as a consequence, VCS Ltd had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists who parked in breach and accordingly, that the penalty charges did not constitute damages.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Firstly it should be noted that the Upper Tribunal was established under Section 3 of the TCE Act 2007 as a Superior Court of record and accordingly, its decisions establish precedents which are bindings on lower courts.
Yesterday, a “little birdie” informed me that VCS Ltd have appealed the Upper Tribunals Order dated 2nd May and the matter is now listed at the Court of Appeal on 4th or 5th May 2013. Closer to the date one of these two dates will fall away.
The case has been listed with a time estimate of 4 hours.
For everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.
0
Comments
-
I bet they are not paying for this all themselves. It affects so many that they must have had a whip round.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
I hope they take their toothbrush then ! SRS is going to be VERY unpopular with the BPA and other PPCs if ( or should that be when) he loses !!!!All aboard the Gus Bus !0
-
If they loose serious blow for ppc's but if they win , they will br crowing about and it will be mentioned in all PPC letters.
Vcs must think they have a case. I hope hmrc put forward a good qc.For everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0 -
VCS will have a team of top barristers/QC on this...should be interesting!:)PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Surely VCS will engage the finest legal mind in the private parking field Oink OINK
:D 0 -
Perky will be busy those days0
-
BASFORDLAD
Thank you for copying my post from CAG !!!
They will of course engage the services of top tax expert BUT they have used experts in TWO previous cases and LOST.
The 164 page Judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Sommerfield also made clear that there is NO contract between the private parking company and the motorist. Sommerfield DID NOT appeal on this point.
VCS Ltd is altogether different because, the implications of the ruling from the Upper Tribunal is that VCS Ltd are liable to pay HMRC for VAT going back as far back as 2005. The amount payable ( plus penalties etc) could be staggering.....0 -
BASFORDLAD
Thank you for copying my post from CAG !!!
They will of course engage the services of top tax expert BUT they have used experts in TWO previous cases and LOST.
The 164 page Judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Sommerfield also made clear that there is NO contract between the private parking company and the motorist. Sommerfield DID NOT appeal on this point.
VCS Ltd is altogether different because, the implications of the ruling from the Upper Tribunal is that VCS Ltd are liable to pay HMRC for VAT going back as far back as 2005. The amount payable ( plus penalties etc) could be staggering.....
Yes the amount would throw Simon and Karen of their horses!!For everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »VCS will have a team of top barristers/QC on this...should be interesting!:)
Who's that then:)?For everthing else there's mastercard.
For clampers there's Barclaycard.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards