CEL DCB Legal court claim

Le_Kirk

If, as that letter states, the debt recovery costs are exclusive of VAT, shouldn't the DRA (or CEL) be adding VAT to the end as per the following: -

VATFIN3255 - The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection.

Debt collection is specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus taxable.

It should be noted that some businesses have sought to use the DMA case (see VATFIN3250) as a reason to exempt taxable debt collection services.

............... unless that refers to income type tax, not VAT.  IANAL nor a tax expert

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

If, as that letter states, the debt recovery costs are exclusive of VAT, shouldn't the DRA (or CEL) be adding VAT to the end as per the following: -

VATFIN3255 - The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection.

Debt collection is specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus taxable.

It should be noted that some businesses have sought to use the DMA case (see VATFIN3250) as a reason to exempt taxable debt collection services.

............... unless that refers to income type tax, not VAT.  IANAL nor a tax expert

Correct, CEL has to add Vat, so the £70 includes VAT.

(They probably meant to write "Exempt", rather than "Exclusive").

nopcns

Castle said:

(They probably meant to write "Exempt", rather than "Exclusive").

Either way, they are telling a porky pie. A request for clarification should be made, just make them start to squirm, and then a report to HMRC that they and their scamming cohorts are raking in millions and not declaring the VAT element.

itcouldbeme94

Hello again all,

So the time has come, claim form received, issue date 17/10/24.

I'm just about to go through submitting my AOS, and will then begin drafting my defence. All of this feels a little overwhelming but I've come too far now I think!

Their particulars seem very generic, the same as I've read elsewhere on here aside from point 3, which states the reason as exceeding the free stay duration of the car park (60 minutes). Would it still be reasonable to suggest the particulars provided aren't sufficient?

Whilst I did overstay by 15 minutes, due to the time taken for our large food order to be served - the car park and restaurant were both more or less empty, should this be noted alongside their addition for "damages"?

Thank you in advance anyone who can help steer me with this, I tend to struggle with things like this - referencing etc so I just want to try and get everything as spot on as I can

KeithP

itcouldbeme94 said:

...claim form received, issue date 17/10/24.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th October, you have until Tuesday 5th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 19th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's almost four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

itcouldbeme94 said:

Hello again all,

So the time has come, claim form received, issue date 17/10/24.

I'm just about to go through submitting my AOS, and will then begin drafting my defence. All of this feels a little overwhelming but I've come too far now I think!

Their particulars seem very generic, the same as I've read elsewhere on here aside from point 3, which states the reason as exceeding the free stay duration of the car park (60 minutes).

Would it still be reasonable to suggest the particulars provided aren't sufficient?

No.

CEL or DCB Legal filed the claim?

Show us the POC.

itcouldbeme94

DCB Legal filed the claim, POC attached! 

Coupon-mad

Jolly good.  Read any DCB Legal claim threads. They will discontinue in 2025.

itcouldbeme94

I'm going to put my defence together tomorrow (I work 2 jobs so time is sparse at the moment!). I've just had a read over the template defence and just have a question regarding the first point. Do I still want to include the point of "It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term"? To expand, I wasn't aware at the time that I'd been there over an hour, but obviously I can't argue against the ANPR?

Thanks everyone

Coupon-mad

Yes you leave that in. You could expand that to: "any prominently displayed term"