PCM High Point Village Hayes (letter from Shakespeare Martineau)

Coupon-mad

OK so now do this please - no delay:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80652577/#Comment_80652577

Replace 'BW Legal' with Shakespeare Martineau and change "our costs" to whatever they called the added £70 admin 'fee'.

SamDude

I'm using the text from the other thread, which has ~2040 characters - but the HMRC form only allows 1200 characters. (Also it doesn't let you add attachments, so that part doesn't apply.)

I'm trying to bring the character count down but I don't want to lose too much detail - I need to lose 600 characters from this:

This report is VAT concerns involving the conduct of the legal and Debt Recovery firms aligned to the 'rogue' private parking industry.

Shakespeare Martineau (SM) refuse to confirm whether consumers are being unlawfully hit with the VAT element of their added 'fees'.

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

These third party debt collectors include BW Legal,  DCB, Gladstones, TNC, CIS, Trace Debt Recovery, ZZPS, Debt Recovery Plus, QDR (+others) who are listed as members of the BPA/IPC Approved Operator or approved debt firms.

SM refuse to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what they call the "debt recovery fee", and it is now widely suspected that some or all of the private parking industry specialist Debt Recovery firms (including legal firms) may be operating as follows.

Either:

(a) not paying HMRC the VAT element on the £60/70 per PCN 'admin fees' that they charge for 'debt recovery'. This amounts to £multi-millions p.a. due to parking cases now exceeding 12m DVLA look-ups per year.  Within weeks, £70 per PCN is added and aggressively demanded. 90% of those cases that result in court claims include multiple £70 'fees' that the parking operator clients have never paid and appear to be unjust enrichment of the DRAs;

or

(b) including VAT within the fixed £70 'fee' which they describe as "debt recovery fee" - making the consumer pay the VAT. HMRC has already stated is unlawful in cases of enforcement or debt recovery fees.

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 (ref: VATFIN3255).

Coupon-mad

Please investigate the VAT approach of a Debt Recovery firm aligned to the parking industry.

Shakespeare Martineau (SM) refuse to confirm whether they are paying VAT on their 'debt fees'. This is not about parking charges, it concerns the added £70 admin costs that the DLUHC called 'extorting money from motorists'.

SM refuse to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what they call the "debt recovery fee", and it is suspected that some or all of the private parking industry Debt Recovery firms may be operating as follows.

Either:

(a) not paying HMRC the VAT element on the £60/70 per PCN 'admin fees' they charge for 'debt recovery'. This amounts to £multi-millions p.a. due to parking cases now exceeding 12m DVLA look-ups p.a.;

or

(b) including VAT within the added £70 which they describe as "debt recovery fee" - making the consumer pay the VAT. HMRC has already stated this is unlawful in cases of enforcement or debt recovery fees.

The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single composite supply, the core of which is debt collection, excluded from the finance exemption, and is taxable (ref: VATFIN3255).

Coupon-mad

That's about 1130 characters. 

SamDude

I got it down to +200 over, but you beat me to it

Report submitted!

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Now we'll go for the others, one by one.  We need to ask the same questions of ZZPS, TNC, CIS, Elms Legal, DRP, Gladstones, DCB Ltd, DCB Legal and all the rest, then report them to HMRC when they refuse to answer transparently.

Stand up and be counted, parking DRAs and roboclaim legals.  If you are doing it right (and I expect some are) you have nothing to fear.

IMHO, some players in this parasite industry have demonstrated a cavalier attitude to consumers and to money, so I'd be gobsmacked if all of them are doing this right.

sad_woman

SamDude said:

I've been reading some of the other High Point Village threads, but none have actually gotten past this stage with Shakespeare Martineau.

I've drafted this email that will go to Ballymore Group as they are the landowner.I've read that this land around the station falls under railway bylaws so I have mentioned that.

Complaint – PCN at High Point Village (Hayes, UB3)

Hello,
I would like to register my complaint for the aggressive issuance of a parking charge notice by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (along with their agents). 

 I am the registered keeper of the vehicle for which this parking charge notice was issued to. The PCN reference is PCxxxxxxxx on the dd/mm/yyyy.

I would like to bring to your attention that your agent, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited, did not comply with their ATAs Code of Practice because of the poor signage within the location – the photos of the vehicle show construction work ongoing (and Google street view also shows this around that time). Furthermore, as the land is covered by railway byelaws, the registered keeper cannot be held liable as PoFA does not apply.

I have been sent a Letter of Claim for this matter and I will be challenging it fully. A parking charge notice is not a fine, nor is it legally binding as no contract was entered into.
Should this proceed to a court claim, Ballymore Group should know that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of Parking Control Management (UK) Limited and their agents. I would suggest that Ballymore Group refers this complaint to your legal advisors as they may be called as witnesses.

As this PCN was issued incorrectly and unfairly, I believe that Ballymore Group can resolve this matter immediately by instructing Parking Control Management (UK) Limited to cancel the PCN and withdraw from any further aggressive contact.

Does this look good to send or have I missed anything?

Did you ever get a response from Ballymore? I emailed one of the directors but have not even had a 'holding' response. It definitely delivered as no 'non delivery notification' either.. 

SamDude

sad_woman said:

Did you ever get a response from Ballymore? I emailed one of the directors but have not even had a 'holding' response. It definitely delivered as no 'non delivery notification' either.. 

No - no response or acknowledgement (and no 'undeliverable' reply either so it did reach them and they probably binned it).

obu3012

Hey @SamDude,

Did this go to court in the end? Keen to hear how that went as I just got one PCN at the exact same place myself but it's now at the lease company stage (transferring liability to me).

Won't hijack the thread, keen to hear some updates!

SamDude

obu3012 said:

Hey @SamDude,

Did this go to court in the end? Keen to hear how that went as I just got one PCN at the exact same place myself but it's now at the lease company stage (transferring liability to me).

Won't hijack the thread, keen to hear some updates!

I've not received anything since March for my emails questioning them about their VAT treatment.

I'd be keen to follow your thread if you have one to compare notes?