NPM County Court Claim

KeithP

parked his card??

Fever

KeithP said:

parked his card??

LOL just in Paragraph 4 I managed to say that right? Thanks for proofreading and managing to catch that one for me!
Changed on my master copy now

Fever

Coupon-mad said:

For me to say that's the highest 2xPCN claim I've ever seen is saying something because I've done this stuff for 15 years!

Please do simply copy & paste everything that I wrote in the second half of my reply, into an online complaint to the SRA about Gladstones, attaching a copy of the claim form and a URL link to the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment.

It is high time this was investigated by the SRA.

Just thinking as well, that it is high time HMRC had a look at who keeps what.

HMRC looks in depth and decides the true meaning of funds -  e.g. just because Gladstones call it a 'contractual cost' for the client, doesn't mean HMRC would agree, if it turns out - after scrutiny by tax experts - to really be what people suspect is (in whole or in part) more likely to be a 'reward fee' for the bulk litigator.

Send the same thing to HMRC!

Right great, having submitted my defence I've sent everything you said to the SRA too
Not sure how best to let HMRC know though - would it be this tax fraud / avoidance reporting mechanism?
https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Fever said:

Coupon-mad said:

For me to say that's the highest 2xPCN claim I've ever seen is saying something because I've done this stuff for 15 years!

Please do simply copy & paste everything that I wrote in the second half of my reply, into an online complaint to the SRA about Gladstones, attaching a copy of the claim form and a URL link to the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment.

It is high time this was investigated by the SRA.

Just thinking as well, that it is high time HMRC had a look at who keeps what.

HMRC looks in depth and decides the true meaning of funds -  e.g. just because Gladstones call it a 'contractual cost' for the client, doesn't mean HMRC would agree, if it turns out - after scrutiny by tax experts - to really be what people suspect is (in whole or in part) more likely to be a 'reward fee' for the bulk litigator.

Send the same thing to HMRC!

Right great, having submitted my defence I've sent everything you said to the SRA too
Not sure how best to let HMRC know though - would it be this tax fraud / avoidance reporting mechanism?
https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud
Thanks

Yes.  Show them your claim form and the original PCNs or signs and please write a short intro about your own case then copy this:


There are two separate issues for HMRC to investigate regarding private parking operators:

1.  Re the 'admin fees' they are now all adding. Is anyone paying VAT on the supposed 'contractual costs' which are over & above the £100 PCN and not quantified on the signs except it vaguely mentions unspecified 'enforcement' costs?  The DLUHC draft IA and detailed analysis about the fake 'debt fees' (published on 31/7/23) has exposed that each recovery case file of chaser letters costs under £8.50 (not £8.50 per PCN, it is per case and 40% of them involve multiple PCNs = a false add-on of hundreds of pounds).  These letter chain costs are expected to be covered by a parking charge (as it was in ParkingEye v Beavis). Authority: paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 - 428 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135 which ParkingEye called 'admin fees'. ParkingEye stopped adding these fees after Somerfield but in 2023 they have just started randomly adding £20 for 'admin' (on top of court claims and capped court fees) even though it's not on their signs, thus NOT part of the contract.

All parking operators are adding admin fees.  Are they paying VAT? This bears all the hallmarks of unjust enrichment of the debt or legal firms.  The purported reason for the enhanced amount of £70 per PCN (according to the BPA and IPC rival Codes of Practice) is 'debt recovery' - which attracts VAT.  Except for cases where claims are pursued in-house, the extra money doesn't seem to go to the parking operator in these arrangements.  It's not part of the contract or core price for parking.  Specialist parking bulk litigators like DCBLegal (only established 5 years ago) and BW Legal are making millions.  Is HMRC looking at their income? 

2.  Re the 'PCNs' themselves. Contract law private parking charges are not penalties and should attract VAT.  Things have changed a lot since HMRC v VCS, where HMRC thought that because VCS also had authority to clamp vehicles, that they had some sort of 'standing' to exempt them from VAT, as they were thought to be dealing with trespass.  Nowadays, clamping was banned in 2012 and no parking firm issues PCNs under the tort of trespass.   Some parking operators (Smart Parking Ltd and Civil Enforcement Ltd) need investigating separately because they only have a bare licence as mere agents acting on behalf of landowners, and in many cases have no standing at all to make contracts with drivers or litigate in their own name.  And surely HMRC should be looking at VAT on parking charges again now that clamping was banned over a decade ago, this isn't trespass compensation despite the line that VCS fed HMRC, it's remuneration for consideration (a contract) and APCOA lost a landmark EU case:
https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/2a6aakzi8dqeoy2r8baww/apcoa-parking-yet-another-case-of-vat-and-compensation

HMRC please investigate 1 and 2.  This is a £billion business currently not paying VAT due to an outdated decision from when VCS were clampers.

Fever

It turned out that I had to edit down your post to under 1200 characters and then, in a separate section, could only describe my claim form, not actually attach and submit it at this point at least. A report has been made to HRMC now though

Coupon-mad

Good!  Can you pm me what you managed to fit in, as I plan to do my own report to HMRC shortly and will make sure it's different from yours.

Fever

Hi, sorry, this seems like a noob question but I couldn't find where it was answered specifically
I received the acknowledgement of the receipt of my defence from the court back on 22 August
And then a copy of the claimant's Directions Questionnaire on 5th September

I was going to wait until the court sent me my own blank directions questionnaire and instructed me to complete it with a deadline but it's now the 1st October and I still haven't heard anything

Is that normal? Do you think I should just go ahead and get the electronic form and complete it ASAP at this point?
Thanks  

Le_Kirk

It is sadly normal as CCBC/CNBC are well behind with their admin. Check your MCOL account to see the latest.

Coupon-mad

Fever said:

Hi, sorry, this seems like a noob question but I couldn't find where it was answered specifically
I received the acknowledgement of the receipt of my defence from the court back on 22 August
And then a copy of the claimant's Directions Questionnaire on 5th September

I was going to wait until the court sent me my own blank directions questionnaire and instructed me to complete it with a deadline but it's now the 1st October and I still haven't heard anything

Is that normal? Do you think I should just go ahead and get the electronic form and complete it ASAP at this point?
Thanks  

Loads of other threads show DQ stage is taking 2 months at the moment. Your MCOL history will show when it's sent. 

Fever

I have received NPM / Gladstones Witness Statement and, included as one of their exhibits is the Parking Scheme Agreement between themselves and the property management company of the flats
remember though that I parked on the road outside the car park to the flats.
I contacted the CEO of the management company and she said

"The parking on the main road is a completely separate area, and is not part of [our company], this has always been the case, and has not changed. I am not sure if its [another local company] , but I do know that its policed (maybe by NPM)

I am sorry to hear you have these extortionate fines, unfortunately there is not much I can do. I would however question their witness statement, as there was no contract between them and [our company]  for the main road, only the parking bays, inside the development of flats. The main road is owned by another party."

So.. the exhibit they've included is not actually relevant according to that - I should absolutely include this information in my own witness statement, right? How damaging to their case do you think this blunder will be? Should I try to track down the people behind the company she suspect the actual relevant parking agreement may have been with - is there much they could do at this point?
Thanks