Why it is important to know who the PPC has a contract with

Guys_Dad

I have advocated for some time that POPLA and IAS appeals need to home in on who has hired the PPC. Was it the landowner or was it a lessee/tenant.

If it was the landowner, then the appeal should demand details of the contract. If it was the lessee, however, then there is a second equally important additional stage to pursue - the contract that the lesee has with the landowner.

This is best shown by examining a typical thread on here where a lessee in a block of flats has forgotten to display their permit and got a ticket. The PPC claims that the landowner has the right to run their land and the lessee has to abide by their overriding decision. Now we always advise looking at the lease to see what right householders have when leasing a flat, so we need to adopt the same advice when dealing with commercial firms who act in a mirror image way.

If a flat dweller on a lease is asked to abide by a landowner's decision to appoint a PPC and has no right to opt out, then why should a commercial firm have the right to appoint a PPC unless the landowner has specifically granted that right in their lease.

So, in all cases where it is NOT the landowner who has appointed the PPC, not only should we advise a "No valid contract between client and PPC" appeal point but also a "No valid contract between lessee and landowner" and demand to see evidence of that.

For all we know, the council may have placed restrictions on the use of that land and, of course, when the car park is being run contractually with £100 parking charges - as against £100 penalties (the IPC model) then the land has changed purposes from an amenity to a business and should be re-rated as such.

Guys_Dad

Sorry to bump my own thread, but a question for the regulars.

Working on the IPC "contract model", then their claim is that their PPCs are actually running a very expensive £100 car park that offers discounts to certain people - permit holders, < 2 hour parkers etc.

That then becomes a business rather than amenity, so is there a case for a further appeal point in those cases headed "Trading Illegally"?

Clearly, unless they have notified the council of the change of use, there may be some mileage in this but need some views from regulars.

Half_way

Tax, and buisness rates will also differ if the land is being used to directly generate money as oppose to a genuine free car park.

Marktheshark

If you believe anyone to be trading illegally or VAT avoiding you have a defence in Law of refusing to assist an offender.

I bet they would not want that can of worms opening up in a court.

Northlakes

Very correct post by GD.

A case in point locally where a supermarket contracts Horizon but the land is leased from the council.
The council has an agreement that the TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO PARKING SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE COUNCIL RUN CAR PARKS.

Haven't seen a PCN case come up yet but the point made by GD is a valid one.

Umkomaas

From recollection there was a PE/B&M stores scenario. But Tesco were the landowners and told B&M they had no right to contract a car park manager on Tesco land. A bit hazy - may be someone will recall more detail than me.