Parking Eye charge Burton Hospitals VAT

Umkomaas

£420k is the extrapolated figure of PCNs paid and on which VAT has been paid by the hospital trust.

£7k VAT per month = £84k VAT per year.

Extrapolation calculation (£84,000/20 = £4,200) x 100 = £420,000.

Cross-check: £420,000 x 20% = £84,000. QED.

The hospital trust pay this to PE (who account for it to HMRC - no reason for them not to). The hospital then recover the VAT against any VATable services they provide - not many probably, but in the overall mega budget they deal with £84k would be small beer to be offset.

Ultimately it costs PE nothing, it costs the Trust nothing - it's Joe Public picking up the tab via their PCN payment!

Stroma

On the figures above by Bargepole, the 18 a day on average are the ones that pay, if as we suspect that 70% of tickets are not paid then it takes it up to 30 a day being sent invoices. That means almost 11k a year are invoiced. The 70% figure is taken from their turnover! I suspect though that the harassment to the sick will probably mean a higher percentage will pay.

Dee140157

Thank you for swift explanations. Will take me a couple of reads to get my head around what you have said, but by tomorrow I will have got it. Almost there now. I usually find a nights sleep helps me process!

bazster

Look at it like this Dee:

1. ParkingEye chisels a load of money out of some sick and vulnerable people as the health trust's agent.

2. Because ParkingEye is merely the health trust's agent, it hands the money over to the health trust.

3. The health trust pays ParkingEye for its services as agent. By some bizarre coincidence the amount ParkingEye gets paid for its services is always identical to the amount ParkingEye handed over to the health trust at (2) above.

4. Because the payment to ParkingEye is a payment for services, it attracts VAT i.e. ParkingEye charges the health trust VAT.


What makes it confusing is that 2 and 3 don't actually happen. Because it's the same money going both ways they don't bother, ParkingEye simply keeps it, which just leaves the VAT to be dealt with.

We know about all this because it's in ParkingEye's standard contract. However, in cases where it suits ParkingEye to pose in court as principal rather than agent they brazenly redact this bit from the contract presented to the court.

salmosalaris

They are clearly an agent in these cases. The question is whether they can justifiably claim the NHS trust is an undisclosed principal at the time the parking contract was formed

bazster

The issue of a possibly undisclosed principal would be an issue at the time the supposed contract was formed between motorist and ParkingEye, it's not related to the contract between ParkingEye and health trust. In other words, if PE were arguing undisclosed principal they wouldn't need to redact the contract with the health trust.

salmosalaris

By parking contract I meant the one between PE and motorist !!

salmosalaris

On signage ( the parking contract ) where the true principal is either named or their existence disclosed there is clearly no argument that the principal is undisclosed .
On a site eg a hospital where the landowner eg a trust advertises themselves on signage at the entrance (as well as being public knowledge ) but not on PE's signs the matter is more open to debate