GXS Services Shoreham Port - Final Demand BW legal

ronnie1977

Fruitcake said:

Has the driver's identity been given to the PPC at any point? Shoreham Port is covered by byelaws, therefore it is not relevant land, therefore the keeper can never be held liable.

Byelaws_2012_Shoreham_Port_Authority_approved.pdf (shoreham-port.co.uk)

What was the reason given for issuing the PCN and the claim? Even if the driver's identity has been given, only para 16 of the byelaws would be relevant to a parking event, and only if a breach of parking was the same as if it occurred on a public road.

There was an airport byelaws case recently where the judge found that the parking terms were more onerous than the byelaws. The byelaws permitted stopping in an emergency, which the driver did to attend to a sick infant, yet the PPC's made up rules said that stopping was not permitted under any circumstances. The judge thought this was unfair, and determined that the byelaws took precedence. 

In your case, the parking terms (whatever they are) are more onerous than the operating of a vehicle terms stated in the byelaws.

I'll have a look to see if I can find the relevant thread, which I think was quite recent. 

Sorry I missed your comment so didn't reply, the drivers identity hasn't been given and reason for issue was parking without a valid cashless session.

Should I raise this with the port and/ or BW legal?If you could point me in the direction of the relevant thread that would be great. 

Coupon-mad

Not the answer to the question you asked! Repeat the question about VAT like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80554334/#Comment_80554334

foden11

If someone receives a letter from DRP ( others are available) with the £70.00 added if the person is VAT registered could they not insist on a VAT invoice from said company's, just wondering. 

Coupon-mad

Yes - if the DRA says that the £70 the victim is being expected to pay includes VAT.

Either the victim is paying it (not allowed, according to HMRC) or the PPC is paying it on top ( = would be correct), or some of them appear to be not paying VAT that certainly arises on debt recovery...

None of them are answering this question.

I shall be reporting various aggressive eejits to HMRC if they'll listen.

ronnie1977

Hi,

I am still trying to get BW legal to answer the VAT question! 

I said the following:

I refer specifically to the £70 that in your letter of claim you label as 'legal costs’, is the £70 that you have described as 'legal costs’ inclusive of the VAT element, or not? kindly break this £70 down. Is the parking firm going to pay the VAT element of these debt recovery costs, or is the consumer expected to pay the VAT, already calculated within the £70?

I received back from BW legal:

Please find your Statement of Account enclosed. The Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £100.00 and our additional costs amount to £70.00. The relevant Code of Practice laid out by the International Parking Community (IPC) states that £100.00 is a reasonable amount to charge for the breach of contract within our Client's car parks. The additional cost of £70.00 represents the nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents in the collection of the balance of the unpaid Parking Charge. Our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the cost of the PCN and the costs of debt recovery, due to non-payment of the charge in question.

They then said that they won't respond to disputes going forward and if I wish to dispute it further I should seek independent legal advice.

I am not sure what they mean by this and why they won't answer the question (which I have now asked them twice)! Any advice on next steps would be much appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

Let's report them to HMRC.  Let's choose them to be the first to be reported. I would LOVE them (and Gladstones & DCB) to be investigated.

You tried hard to get a straight answer but it looks like they MIGHT not be paying VAT on the DRA fee and if they are (if the added £70 DRA fee includes VAT) it looks like the consumer is paying the VAT which HMRC has said already must not happen with enforcement or debt chasing 'fees'.

I'm local(ish) to Shoreham Port so this is a good one to choose for an extra pushback against BW Legal. Why not?!  If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

ronnie1977

Coupon-mad said:

Let's report them to HMRC.  Let's choose them to be the first to be reported. I would LOVE them (and Gladstones & DCB) to be investigated.

You tried hard to get a straight answer but it looks like they MIGHT not be paying VAT on the DRA fee and if they are (if the added £70 DRA fee includes VAT) it looks like the consumer is paying the VAT which HMRC has said already must not happen with enforcement or debt chasing 'fees'.

I'm local(ish) to Shoreham Port so this is a good one to choose for an extra pushback against BW Legal. Why not?!  If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

Yes I am happy to report them, they are definitely acting like they have something to hide! What do you think is the best way to go about this to ensure that HMRC take it seriously?

Fruitcake

ronnie1977 said:

Fruitcake said:

Has the driver's identity been given to the PPC at any point? Shoreham Port is covered by byelaws, therefore it is not relevant land, therefore the keeper can never be held liable.

Byelaws_2012_Shoreham_Port_Authority_approved.pdf (shoreham-port.co.uk)

What was the reason given for issuing the PCN and the claim? Even if the driver's identity has been given, only para 16 of the byelaws would be relevant to a parking event, and only if a breach of parking was the same as if it occurred on a public road.

There was an airport byelaws case recently where the judge found that the parking terms were more onerous than the byelaws. The byelaws permitted stopping in an emergency, which the driver did to attend to a sick infant, yet the PPC's made up rules said that stopping was not permitted under any circumstances. The judge thought this was unfair, and determined that the byelaws took precedence. 

In your case, the parking terms (whatever they are) are more onerous than the operating of a vehicle terms stated in the byelaws.

I'll have a look to see if I can find the relevant thread, which I think was quite recent. 

Sorry I missed your comment so didn't reply, the drivers identity hasn't been given and reason for issue was parking without a valid cashless session.

Should I raise this with the port and/ or BW legal?If you could point me in the direction of the relevant thread that would be great. 

Sorry, I missed your reply as well. I couldn't find the thread, but thinking about now, it wouldn't have included the case number or court details, so wouldn't have helped much. However, the fact still remains that the parking Ts and Cs at the site in your case are more onerous than the port authority byelaws.

I would include the comments about the site being not relevant land therefore the keeper cannot be held liable, plus the point about the unregulated private parking company's Ts and Cs being more onerous than the port byelaws on your defence, should a claim be issued.

ronnie1977

Fruitcake said:

ronnie1977 said:

Fruitcake said:

Has the driver's identity been given to the PPC at any point? Shoreham Port is covered by byelaws, therefore it is not relevant land, therefore the keeper can never be held liable.

Byelaws_2012_Shoreham_Port_Authority_approved.pdf (shoreham-port.co.uk)

What was the reason given for issuing the PCN and the claim? Even if the driver's identity has been given, only para 16 of the byelaws would be relevant to a parking event, and only if a breach of parking was the same as if it occurred on a public road.

There was an airport byelaws case recently where the judge found that the parking terms were more onerous than the byelaws. The byelaws permitted stopping in an emergency, which the driver did to attend to a sick infant, yet the PPC's made up rules said that stopping was not permitted under any circumstances. The judge thought this was unfair, and determined that the byelaws took precedence. 

In your case, the parking terms (whatever they are) are more onerous than the operating of a vehicle terms stated in the byelaws.

I'll have a look to see if I can find the relevant thread, which I think was quite recent. 

Sorry I missed your comment so didn't reply, the drivers identity hasn't been given and reason for issue was parking without a valid cashless session.

Should I raise this with the port and/ or BW legal?If you could point me in the direction of the relevant thread that would be great. 

Sorry, I missed your reply as well. I couldn't find the thread, but thinking about now, it wouldn't have included the case number or court details, so wouldn't have helped much. However, the fact still remains that the parking Ts and Cs at the site in your case are more onerous than the port authority byelaws.

I would include the comments about the site being not relevant land therefore the keeper cannot be held liable, plus the point about the unregulated private parking company's Ts and Cs being more onerous than the port byelaws on your defence, should a claim be issued.

Thanks, yes I checked this out and it looks like in 2021 shoreham port introduced generation directions which I think replaced the bylaws. The clause for vehicles is basically the same 'no person can drive or otherwise operate a Vehicle on Port Premises without complying with all the statutory requirement that are applicable of public roads', not sure what legal standing general directions have compared with Byelaws though.

Castle

The 2021 General Directions still imposes fines for an offence, so the port is still under statutory control.

85. PENALTY PROVISIONS (1) By virtue of Article 8 of the 2021 Order any person who fails to comply with a General Direction shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. (2) In any proceedings for an offence under paragraph (1), it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence