Parking charge notice after 14 days of parking session

Infiniti37

Coupon-mad said:

But they didn't answer the VAT questions.  Did you add them, as I advised you to?

Sorry I may have missed the reference. Searched this forum and couldnt find anything about VAT. The sent the below as per the message on 17th Feb: 

"

Dear Sir or Madam

I write with reference to a “Letter of Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXX) dated XXX of February 2024

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references.

I note that your client is relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle.

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered to myself on the XXX 2023. In this letter are the particulars “Sending date (printed)” as the XXX 2023 and Contravention Date as the XXX.

This was outlined clearly in my original appeal to your client “You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my data.

Yours faithfully

XXX

 "

Coupon-mad

Ok so now send the recommended one in the NEWBIES thread.

Infiniti37

Coupon-mad said:

The NEWBIES thread tells you how to reply to a LBC.

I have picked the below from newbies thread and padded with specific reason on why PCN doesnt apply (14 day POFA rule) as below. 

"

Dear XXX,

Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: xxxxxx xxxxxxxx Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

 

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver  (see VCS v Edward, 2023). Also, The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA (14 day rule)

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct”

If you persist in processing my data and in the event of filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the DPA 2018 and/or the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

Preferably tell your client from me to crack on with cleaning up their act to comply with the incoming statutory Code of Practice.  Groundbreaking improvements would include issuing future Notices of Parking Charge properly and engaging fairly, avoiding involving bulk litigators like you lot in this 'extorting money from motorists' model outed by the DLUHC as a market failure.

 

Yours faithfully,

"

How does this look?

Fruitcake

I wouldn't mention a counterclaim unless,

1) You really intend to go through with it,
2) You really, really understand what is involved with making a counterclaim,
3) You really, really can achieve the very high level of proof needed to succeed with a claim for distress.

Infiniti37

Fruitcake said:

I wouldn't mention a counterclaim unless,

1) You really intend to go through with it,
2) You really, really understand what is involved with making a counterclaim,
3) You really, really can achieve the very high level of proof needed to succeed with a claim for distress.

Thanks @Fru@Fruitcake Not too sure about that to be honest so I am going to remove those references.

Infiniti37

Coupon-mad said:

But they didn't answer the VAT questions.  Did you add them, as I advised you to?

Hi they have sent further update as below addressing VAT question:

"

Thank you for contacting us, please find our response below: Good Afternoon   We write with regards to the above matter.   Debt recovery costs are contractually agreed by the motorist when visiting the car park.     They only apply when the opportunity to pay the parking charge has expired and the parking company has been forced to commence debt recovery activities.  Such contractual costs are recognised by the courts as covering debt recovery activity between the expiry of the parking charge notice and the commencement of litigation, including pre-litigation correspondence.     The fees we charge our clients for our services are subject to VAT.  However, these are separate and distinct from contractual debt recovery costs recoverable by our client from the motorist.   Furthermore, our Client has already addressed and declined the points raised in your original appeal and confirmed that the Parking Charge Notice was compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) and as such, is legally entitled to pursue you under PoFA as the registered keeper of the vehicle.   We would strongly recommend seeking legal advice from a reputable, free source such as Stepchange or Citizens Advice, should you continue to repeat the same dispute and refuse payment. If you have any further issues or new questions that you would like us to assist you with, we kindly request that you use the contact options below to submit a new query.

 

Yours sincerely,

BW Legal " Sending letter to registered keeper who has not disclosed driver after 14 days of parking sessions - not sure how they think that they are compliant with POFA!

Coupon-mad

Please now report BW Legal for VAT concerns due to parking roboclaim firms (generally) potentially totalling multi £millions that we think THEY have banked and therefore VAT is owed to HMRC.

Time to report your VAT concerns about BW Legal online to HMRC.

Now please.  No delay (to be clear, I am NOT accusing any company of VAT fraud): 

https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud

Tell HMRC that:

This report concerns VAT concerns involving the conduct of the legal and Debt Recovery firms operating as parasites clinging limpet-like to the 'rogue' private parking industry.

This report specifically concerns BW Legal and the completely different answers that they have given to consumers asking exactly the same question.  When asked by one consumer about the VAT element of their added 'fees' BW Legal (acting as a debt collector) referred to the add-on as "our costs".

But to me, they have distanced themselves and told me that these are "contractual debt recovery costs recoverable by our client from the motorist."  Making it sound like the added £60 is retained by the client.

But this answer doesn't fit with what the industry told the Government (see the DLUHC's 2023 'draft Impact Assessment' below):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b6666a0ea2cb001315e47b/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

The DLUHC has clearly been told that the 'DRA fees' are retained (as you'd expect) by the Debt recovery firm, and the parking industry have whinged to the Government that the DRA parasite industry will fall over if their DRA fees are banned as part of the statutory regulation (as they should be banned to end the extortionate model).

However, it looks like HMRC might be owed multi millions in missing VAT on the fees charged by DRA firms.  And it looks like consumers are paying the VAT element, them HMRC are not seeing any of it.

This is not about parking charges (these cannot exceed £100).  It is all about the added £60 or £70 admin/DRA costs that the DLUHC called 'extorting money from motorists'.

These third party debt collectors include BW Legal,  DCB Ltd, DCB Legal, Gladstones Solicitors, Empira, TNC, CIS, Trace Debt Recovery, ZZPS, Debt Recovery Plus, QDR solicitors, CST Law, Elms Legal and others who are listed as members of the BPA and/or IPC Approved Operator or approved debt firms.

This is a VAT concern involving a huge sum.

The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection, which is specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus taxable:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3255

I have complained and given BW Legal every chance to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what they told another consumer are "our costs" but they have replied with a different story to me.

This is long overdue HMRC investigation; please let me know if you require further information.

yours faithfully

your name