Ppc's ("contracts"): Causing financial loss (part 1)

4consumerrights

My obsession with the PPC world has been increasing and recent enquiries have revealed more possible opportunities to hit these scammers where it hurts them the most - losing money.

The Valuation Office Agency has confirmed that car parks are liable for business rates collected via individual local councils. The rates are quite complex and difficult to evaluate and are dependant on a number of factors such as size, location and no of parking spaces. I have already suggested to one local council just one car park by one company and have been told that no current business rates are being collected for that site from that company. They are currently investigating whether the land owner is paying.

This opens a number of interesting legal points regarding PPCs contracts and their rights to pursue parking charges-
If an actual contract exists between the PPC and the landowner; then to acquire full automony over the right to pursue parking charges, the PPC should be liable for all taxes involved with running the business on the site. This information could be requested for POPLA and pre-court cases etc.

It has puzzled me why landowners are so keen to let these companies run their car parks. One reason is that the PPC's offer their services free of charge to the landowner, nor do they pay rent to the landowner. The landowner is often offered an "incentive " (which could be construed as a bribe) such as a 10% rebate on parking charges collected. This information is freely admitted on some PPC websites! However, another reason is that the landowner can actually claim a rebate on their business rates for allowing a third party to operate car parks. It is then left up to the individual councils to collect this portion of the tax. With so many car parks run by so many different companies and contracts changing - I am sure that many PPCs are avoiding their legal obligations to pay this tax - which in turn increases the council tax for everyone else.

I welcome everyone's views, opionions on this matter and would suggest anyone with a parking charge to contact the relevant council to enquire if they are paying appropriate business rates (it cannot do any harm1).

The_Slithy_Tove

Applying business rates to any car park where a company is operating a commercial, for profit business (i.e. anywhere a PPC is operating) has been discussed quite a bit on Pepipoo over recent months. It's just one more line of attack for those up to it, to approach the council and enquire why a company is operating in a zero-rated location (supposedly free car park). The user Lynnzer on Pepipoo has done quite a bit of work on it.

Trouble is that most people who come on these forums, though they are advised to complain to BPA/DVLA and approach the council about planning permission and VOA around business rates, we know most do not. If everyone did, the PPCs would be disappearing from these car parks.

Umkomaas

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Applying business rates to any car park where a company is operating a commercial, for profit business (i.e. anywhere a PPC is operating) has been discussed quite a bit on Pepipoo over recent months. It's just one more line of attack for those up to it, to approach the council and enquire why a company is operating in a zero-rated location (supposedly free car park). The user Lynnzer on Pepipoo has done quite a bit of work on it.

Trouble is that most people who come on these forums, though they are advised to complain to BPA/DVLA and approach the council about planning permission and VOA around business rates, we know most do not. If everyone did, the PPCs would be disappearing from these car parks.

I've just suggested it as an add-on to a POPLA appeal that the PPC is asked to produce proof they are paying local rates for the car park from which they derive income, more as a cage-rattler than anything else.

If they ignore the POPLA request they lose, so they will have to explain in their response to POPLA why they think they should not pay rates. As I said, it gives them something more to think about - a new angle of attack from the forum.

newholme30

The rates approach sounds an interesting add-on to any appeal and particularly if heading to court. I have been thinking the same about 'incentives' to the Landholder making it attactive for them to employ PE or other PPCs. However this must be looking like such a bad idea for firms like Aldi and the rest. The damage to their brand is costing them far more than a few pennies from a PPC to 'manage' their parking.

I dont dispute that they are all doing a job, but I object to the fact that the majority of posts on this forum seem to relate to minor indiscretions which lead to punitive fines far in excess of the loss.

Ultimately if they were doing their job properly and everyone paid the parking fee (as they should in my mind), these companies would have absolutley no income whatsoever!

spacey2012

IMO : The key word in Contract is "Consideration" for any contract to exist there must have been consideration, consideration is what each party places up to exchange.
You can not offer consideration of things you do not own.
PPC well most only manage car parks, they own nothing, so they have no consideration to give, any offer can only be made by those who do.

This was picked up on in the famous HMRC case, but overlooked by most forums.
The two main points they pulled were Right of Audience and consideration in contracts.
With someone on the other forum shooting both down and incorrectly advising that a PPC can act as a litigant in person in court action, they can not and where it was challenged, the threw the towel straight in.
They may, in response provide a solicitor, some judges won't even wear this, but what it does do is mean the parking firm dare not turn up blind as the challenge has been made in the defence and it is now going to cost them a lot of cash to chase a parking charge in court.
They can claim £50, a fraction of the real cost.

HO87

PPC members of the AOS's i.e. - the Approved Operator Scheme (BPA) and the Accredited Operator Scheme (IPC) are required to either:

4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all requirements laid down by law. (BPA version)

Or

2.42 Be compliant with all necessary legislation. (IPC version)

The non-payment of business rates on a PPC "managed" car park would seem to fall fairly and squarely under one or other of the above headings (dependent on which ATA they are members of). There is no reason I can see why this shouldn't be added to a POPLA/IAS appeal - it demonstrates what may well be a further breach of one or other of the CoP's.

esmerobbo

I have an ongoing enquiry with a council on this very matter.

I found this very useful.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume5/sect200/b-rat-man-vol5-s200.html

Especially this section!

In some cases whilst there is no provision for parking charges, the operator rigidly applies a policy of penalty charges to anyone who overstays their free parking period. Where a significant income is generated from this source, there is a presumption of value; how much will depend on the facts.

Hovite_2

esmerobbo wrote: »

I have an ongoing enquiry with a council on this very matter.

I found this very useful.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/RatingManual/RatingManualVolume5/sect200/b-rat-man-vol5-s200.html

Especially this section!

In some cases whilst there is no provision for parking charges, the operator rigidly applies a policy of penalty charges to anyone who overstays their free parking period. Where a significant income is generated from this source, there is a presumption of value; how much will depend on the facts.

Thank you for this - I'll be using it in my ongoing battle with the local Aldi :money:

4consumerrights

Good response from everyone - IMO the business rates could be a double whammy against PPC's (my definition of them is changing from Private Parking Companies to Parking Parasitic companies); - hit them at POPLA, include in any court defence cases and report to councils!

Re: Spacey's "Consideration" post -he is absolutely correct - I was going to start a different thread regarding Requisite requirements for contract formation including novation contracts and pre-exisisting obligations that the landowner has with the motorist/driver (when transferring obligations to a third party - i.e. employing parking management companies) - however will post shortly a full version which should be an interesting test case with POPLA if anyone is willing to try an appeal based solely on contract legalities.

Computersaysno

4consumerrights wrote: »

...if anyone is willing to try an appeal based solely on contract legalities.

Try the parking prankster....

Sadly POPLA adjudicators are looking for easy wins.....so you're correct that things need to be tested individually.

martmonk

I've read this twice now and am attempting to get my head around it so apologies if what follows should have been obvious to me by now:

Would this apply in hospital car parks?
Do I approach the council with FOI request or is there an easier (I mean quicker) way?

My focus at the min is on two local trusts.