Shona does it again! (Popla)

HO87

You point is well made. However, "generic", "formulaic" or "obtained from the internet" are phrases occasionally bandied around in court. Sadly, though your point has some merit judges (and others) have a tendency to dismiss commonly worded applications. This is what "did for" many claims for PPI/bank charges compensation that originally made it to court. Judges felt, not unreasonably, that they were not seeing the real merits of each case.

As I suggested, using the detail to inform your own defence is perfectly fine but using it as a "fill-in-the-blanks" appeal/defence may well backfire and in so doing damage the entirely valid points being made. You will not, for example, find a generic defence in respect of PPC cases on PePiPoo - although many defences have originated there. That is for the very same reasons advanced above.

Coupon-mad

And Shona does the same again:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2348459

:T

longtimelurkersam

After losing my first case at popla I just got the first debt recovery plus letter. Will post when I can but they have changed it to include a threat that debt will be passed to the landowners solicitors to instruct county court proceedings etc. still doesn't overrule fact my lease allows me to park with no permit and the loss is zero.

Coupon-mad

Another positive outcome from POPLA to remember for future cases:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75698

Shona clearly accepts arguments that PPCs have in some way breached the BPA Code of Practice. She found it a simple one it seems, because of a breach of the Code in terms of not allowing a grace period for a person to arrive, park, read the signs and then drive away if they don't accept the terms:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0G5WKRQUlgeNkQ2YXQ0VWtIalE/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0G5WKRQUlgeMWR4WFN6TDB5M0E/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1


All these are worth gathering the info about - and as a general point, IMHO people need to be careful not to just say 'a PPC did not have authority to offer parking nor enforce PCNs' which can easily be knocked back with a landowner contract being shown (however rubbish).

What they should really say is 'the PPC did not have a lawful right of occupation or possessory title which would give it the legal standing to offer parking or allege contracts or claim any loss for trespass'. And cite VCS -v- HMRC every time on that basis, I say.

HO87

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Another positive outcome from POPLA to remember for future cases:

...................

What they should really say is 'the PPC did not have a lawful right of occupation or possessory title which would give it the legal standing to offer parking or allege contracts or claim any loss for trespass'. And cite VCS -v- HMRC every time on that basis, I say.

Absolutely. Although I'd suggest honing that a little as I think our previous approach hasn't been targeted specifically enough.

The point is that PPC's will inevitably have a contract with their clients (the BPA AOS CoP requires that they do - no matter how simplistic that may be) but the thrust of the argument we are actually making in relation to VCS v HMRC is that whilst VCS had a contract it did not convey sufficient legal interest by way of occupation or proprietary rights for VCS to be able to offer contracts to park on their own account. The point therefore is that we dispute that the PPC in question has a contract that is compliant with the VCS judgment not simply that they do not have a contract.

If, in the alternative, the PPC assert that they are acting as the landowners agent in collecting what amounts to a payment akin to damages in trespass then the point to raise is whether those funds - or a proportion of them - is retained by the PPC by way of consideration in their contract with the landowner. If they concede that point then the additional point to be made is that their parking notice must be considered as an invoice which fails to identify the service charged for, does not include a VAT analysis nor the PPC's VAT number.

Guys_Dad

Does it have to be an invoice in your last point - and break down VAT as you say?

I only say that because we get many bills to pay in every day life that don't have VAT breakdowns on them or VAT reg numbers on them. You then may ask for a VAT invoice as well - think petrol stations for example.

atilla

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Does it have to be an invoice in your last point - and break down VAT as you say?

I only say that because we get many bills to pay in every day life that don't have VAT breakdowns on them or VAT reg numbers on them. You then may ask for a VAT invoice as well - think petrol stations for example.

Petrol station receipts are vat compliant - retail simplified scheme.
Petrol stations will, if asked, issue an additional vat invoice. In business this can add up to a substantial amount. More importantly, there are specific rules regarding the accounting for vat on fuel, some of which require a vat breakdown.
Everyone else must, if vat registered, issue a vat invoice showing the breakdown.
It is not for the recipient to ask for a vat invoice.
Remember, for businesses the invoice is part of their accounting system and audit trail. No vat invoice no reclaiming vat.

trisontana

Shona has allowed yet another appeal. Again one reason was because the PPC did not produce a contract, and the second being a breach of the BPA COP regarding the discount being offered:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75213&st=100&start=100

However, as the point was raised by the Appellant, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe shows that they do have authority. The Operator states that they are not obliged to provide a copy of any authority but that if I wish to see it they will discuss the matter. However I may only make a decision on the basis of the evidence submitted to me and I am not permitted to enter into discussions with the parties. A copy of the contract has not been produced.
Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifted to the Operator to prove that they do. The Operator has not discharged the burden. Further to this, the Operator has not clearly stated how much the Appellant should pay and when, whether £75 within 7 days, £57 within 14 days or £95 within 28 days.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shona Watson
Assessor

Stroma

Brilliant news I hope the OP there follows coupons advice with suing the landowners for a breach of the equality act if they don't settle

AltheHibby

Atilla,

Following-on from your point, no VAT invoice = a word with HMRC = VAT investigation and possible criminal proceedings.

I think I'll take my latest one in to HMRC and ask for an opinion.