Parking eye's attempts to justify charges

Umkomaas

spacey2012 wrote: »

The company that has just bought parking eye must be holding their head in their hands.
They have bought a company that is based on scamming people.
They rely on senile old county court judges for the odd case, but sooner or later they are going to pick on the wrong one.
One high court challenge and the whole business plan of these PPC's is over.

Hopefully a Judge whose had to jump through all the hoops to rid himself of the PE parasite :cool:

ANPR cameras don't give any indication of occupation - so a matter of time before PE pull a 'wrong-un'.

4consumerrights

Parking Eye are now also citing more commercial justification cases in paperwork for court cases including:

Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752
this relates to increase in interest charges on accounts so is irrelevat

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?28-Lordsvale-Finance-Plc-v-Bank-of-Zambia

Cavendish Square Holdings BV & Anor v El Makdessi [2012] EWHC 4305 (Comm) (18 December 2012) - again irrelevant as it refers to the contract being paid in stages

http://www.druces.com/penalty-clauses-cavendish-square-v-el-makdessi/

Cadogan Petroleum V Global Process sytems
http://construction.practicallaw.com/blog/construction/plc/?p=880

What is common still that these were all individually drawn up contracts between commercial entities - hence the term commercial justification as per previous reasoning.

seen on this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835679

Post 12 here also raises the issue of contractual charges and the payment of VAT - Parking Eye claim to pay VAT on all its charges but this are not charged on parking charge notice.

This is evidently VAT fraud and further details found on new thread started where Parking Eye's contract reveals they charge VAT to their client on parking charge revenue collected.

i.e. for every £100 parking charge received Parking Eye invoice their client £20 VAT whilst retaining the full £100 themselves.

new thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4846335

HO87

@ 4consumerrights

In respect of the VAT issue I refer you to the following post which sort of lays out PE's argument:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64069666&postcount=3

For those who want to continue following this thread here is the post:

Their argument (please note: Its not my argument) goes something like this.

They do not offer the contract to park, this is offered by the landowner. They, PE, collect on behalf of the landowner a charge which is "akin to a penalty" (quote from the first VCS -v- HMRC case) due to the landowner in damages as a consequence of alleged breaches of contract that is not therefore liable to VAT.

However, at that point having collected a charge from the motorist PE retain those monies as consideration for the contract that exists between them and the landowner. As the full £100 represents the consideration it is subject of 20% VAT in toto which the landowner is then liable to pay.

Following their argument (which is based upon the outcome of the third VCS -v- HMRC case heard in the Court of Appeal) the financial construct is correct - much as we might not like it. Whether the construct is a matter of convenience or represents the reality of the relationship is another - and currently - altogether rhetorical question.