So...

StaffsSW

Has anyone considered if this ruling may affect the VAT position on contractual charges?

I understand that VCS v HMRC ruled them as damages, therefore outside of the scope of VAT, but now they are deemed as a deterrence clause, could this change things?

GingerBob_3

Fergie76 wrote: »

What planet do these judges live on? £85-£100 might not be excessive to them, but it is to the average (wo)man.

Therein lies part of the problem. Judges are out of touch with reality in many respects. They talk about a "reasonable motorist" and how he would accept the £85 "contract". Utter b oll ocks!


Beavis going to go to Europe now, or is that avenue closed off to him?

TDA

Seems a pretty definitive judgment to me.

As for VAT, it's not applicable to damages so that's up the spout.

nigelbb

bargepole wrote: »

The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the land. It replaced the House of Lords in 2010 for appeals.

SC decisions are not subject to Judicial Review - there are no judges senior to the ones who heard this appeal.

We are where we are, I'm afraid.

The Government could bring in legislation that explicitly stated that a private parking 'fine' cannot exceed £50 or whatever the local council charges for the same offence. The could even bring in legislation that explicitly bans penalties in contracts & completely negates this decision/ It may be the Supreme Court of all the courts in the land but Parliament is supreme.

zoonyx

I almost daren't say this.... but I remember following another case (unconnected... some nutter vs the new Aberdeen bypass)... after the supreme court loss I thought there was talk he could take it to a European Court?

Guys_Dad

TDA wrote: »

Seems a pretty definitive judgment to me.

As for VAT, it's not applicable to damages so that's up the spout.

Seems the SC says they are not damages.

TDA

Will have to read the whole judgment but they have said it is not a penalty at para 99, so is it not a liquidated damages clause which doesn't reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but that is enforceable none the less.

They are clear it is not a charge for parking or a penalty so it can only be damages.

DCodd

nigelbb wrote: »

The Government could bring in legislation that explicitly stated that a private parking 'fine' cannot exceed £50 or whatever the local council charges for the same offence. The could even bring in legislation that explicitly bans penalties in contracts & completely negates this decision/ It may be the Supreme Court of all the courts in the land but Parliament is supreme.

It depends on how annoyed the Government are about this SC ruling and their interpretation of the legislation. As for parking, if the Government wanted to make an example of this case and send out a message to both the SC and the litigatious parking companies they could do it by simply amending PoFA and removing keeper liability in the short term until better legislation was approved.

fermi

The Law on Penalties After ParkingEye v Beavis : Articles : Insights : Hardwicke

Author: John de Waal QC

The_Slithy_Tove

TDA wrote: »

They are clear it is not a charge for parking or a penalty so it can only be damages.

Not as easy as that. They have specifically said that the charges cover their operating costs, including the Blood Money they pay to the landowner, and even profit. No way can that be classed as damages. The SC judgement is truly bizzare in this respect. I bet HMRC would be interested in how they can get a slice of it. maybe we should all dob PE in to HMRC.

Furthermore, all those POPLA cases which have been held pending this judgement. Surely if the PPC has, at any point, tried to claim that the charge is damages to cover loss (the GPEOL argument) and even made up crazy numbers to justify it, they can hardly come back now and say they aren't losses after all? Same with any correspondence with a PPC when they've claimed GPEOL.

How about this for an approach going forward. If a parking charge is paid, it should be followed by an MCOL claim against the PPC, the landowner, the BPA (where applicable) and the DVLA. The case being that the PPC is in breach of the CoP (which is often the case, PE are particularly bad with compliant signage), the landowner contract (probably) says they must conform to the CoP, therefore the PPC is in breach of their contract and so the cannot issue a parking charge. The BPA and DVLA are liable for allowing keeper details to be released when the PPC has no cause to request them (see above) and are in breach of their KADOE contract, too.