Parking or Stopping?

nameavailable

Here's my proposed response to their LBC.  Anything to add (or delete)?   Many thanks for all the help and encouragement so far!

National Parking Enforcement Ltd

PO Box 3710

Norwich

NR7 7BT

 By email to: office@parkingprotection.co.uk

[date - 28 days from date of LBC]

 Dear Sir/Madam,

Your PCN Number: nnnnnnnn

I refer to your letter before claim.

I confirm that my address for all further correspondence for the time being is as follows, and any older addresses must be erased from your records:

[my address]

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

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

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £110 represents what you claim 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 for damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

It won't be an additional £110. Can't be.  

It will be an added £70.  The PCN was £100.

nameavailable

Ah yes, I used the discounted £60 'offer' in the original PCN letter.  I'll change it to £70 before sending.

Thanks again.

nameavailable

They sent me another identical 'letter before claim', dated 11 days after the first one.  

Is this their normal practice?

I'm going to send my response to them (as per above) tomorrow morning.  Will be interesting to see their answers to the recommended questions!

nameavailable

Well, full marks for a prompt reply from NPE . . . .

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email.

We can confirm that the address information has been updated.

 In answer to the questions:

1. The additional £70.00 is an administration fee, as the Parking Charge Notice is overdue. The signage and the Notices previously sent clearly state about additional administrations fees being added. Please note that Parking Charge Notices are outside the scope of VAT.
2. The Parking Charge is based on a breach of contract.

Yours sincerely,

Beth

Legal Team

I guess I just wait now and see what they do next.

One question though, can there be an implied contract when the area was designated 'No Parking' ?  If there's no contract, surely there can be no breach?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

I guess I just wait now and see what they do next.

Well no...there was a reason for asking about VAT on the 'admin fee'.  It wasn't asked for fun.  Obviously now is the time to report them to HMRC for pretending that an 'admin fee' is exempt from VAT.

As seen on hundreds of threads:

VAT concerns report HMRC

...should find loads of examples.  There are £millions at stake here for HMRC if they just investigate the 'DRA fee' money trail oroperly within the parking industry.

Thorndorise

nameavailable said:

Well, full marks for a prompt reply from NPE . . . .

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email.

We can confirm that the address information has been updated.

 In answer to the questions:

1. The additional £70.00 is an administration fee, as the Parking Charge Notice is overdue. The signage and the Notices previously sent clearly state about additional administrations fees being added. Please note that Parking Charge Notices are outside the scope of VAT.
2. The Parking Charge is based on a breach of contract.

Yours sincerely,

Beth

Legal Team

I guess I just wait now and see what they do next.

One question though, can there be an implied contract when the area was designated 'No Parking' ?  If there's no contract, surely there can be no breach?

Thanks again.

Question for others on here really, have they answered the second question here?

It doesn't seem that they have but I assume this to be a fairly standard response to this (I guess) quite important question also, as, in this instance we know there to be little to no signage, certainly none that implies there would be a PCN for parking at this spot - so, can their rubbish answer be held against them further down the line?

Cheers

Coupon-mad

What makes you think they've answered the first question, which is clearly the more important one?

An 'admin fee' is NOT 'the PCN' and is not exempt from VAT (which is the whole point why that question is there in the LoC response template).  I don't know why posters don't see this.  Why would I put it in the template LoC reply then people do nothing with the reply they get back about VAT?  It is in the template for an important reason.

It's time to report them to HMRC for VAT concerns like on every other thread at this same stage.  Just read a few for inspiration on how to phrase the HMRC VAT concerns report.

nameavailable

I see the VAT issue, now it has been pointed out, and am certainly willing to write to HMRC about it.

But, with respect, that's not my immediate concern, which is how to deal with the issue affecting me right now, so their answer to the second question is of great importance to me and, I suspect, everyone else going through this process.

So, to repeat my question, can there be an implied contract when the area was designated 'No Parking' ?  If something is prohibited then surely that proves they have no intention of entering into a contract with terms and condition that might subsequently be broken?

And if there's no contract, surely there can be no breach of contract?  But that's what they are saying is the basis of their claim.  As Thorndorise asks above, can this statement be used against them?  If it can, then it would seem they are chasing me for the wrong reason and my defence is therefore quite easy and simple.

If there has been any offence, should it not be pursued using tresspass law, which as I understand it would require them to sue for damages?  Again, easy to defend as there was no damage or inconvenience caused to anyone.

Coupon-mad

Yes we agree that can can be part of your defence but that detail is unimportant at this stage because whether there was a contract or not is only going to be determined by a Judge.

Their claim will be based on contract law and you will dispute that using PCM v Bull. Same as seen in loads of threads for many years. Not a new argument.

But none of that matters at this stage and there's no point trying to discuss it with PPC idiots!

I'm glad you are happy to report the VAT concerns to HMRC because this is potentially a ticking time bomb for the industry.