Back in February 2011, a First Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that Vehicle Control Services, a private parking company which did not have an interest in a car park which it was only managing on behalf of a landowner, was not entitled to sue trespassers as principal.
VCS and their parent company Excel happily continued to issue court claims while they appealed to the Upper Tribunal.
However, in March 2012, the Upper Tier Tribunal agreed with the First Tier Tribunal that VCS had insufficient interest in the car parks to pursue a trespass claim and decided that there was no contract between the motorists and VCS.
This was confirmed on 16th May 2012 when VCS lost their case (VCS v Ronald Ibbotson) at Scunthorpe County Court.
The Judge ruled that only the landowner can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents (VCS) and that the landowner then has to prove damages.
VCS have also been ordered by the court to explain why they issued a claim when they had no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so.
This statement should make interesting reading.
More... tinyurl.com/7zwh97s
|
Will that set a precedent?
Is it retrospective, meaning everyone who's ever paid a 'parking charge notice' could claim a refund?
How will it affect the new legislation making the registered keeper responsible for parking charge penalties? It would seem the landowner could not effectively employ a company to enforce charges.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2150607
"
Landmark parking penalty case means thousands could overturn fines slapped on cars in private car parks
....
.... a judge at Scunthorpe County Court dismissed the company’s claim and instructed VCS to give him the money back.
Mr Ibbotson had learned that VCS did not have the legal go-ahead from the landowner of the Wickes store site to pursue parking charges.
VCS is one of Britain’s biggest parking control companies. It operates on more than 600 sites at shopping centres, hospitals and universities all over Britain.
The firm is owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith, who also runs a vehicle immobilisation operation called Mr Clampit.
......
The judge ordered Mr Renshaw-Smith to come to court next month to explain why he had pursued Mr Ibbotson when he had ‘no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so’.
The case is embarrassing for the industry-funded British Parking Association (BPA), of which VCS is a member, because Mr Renshaw-Smith holds a senior position in the organisation.
A BPA spokesman said: ‘Our code of practice requires members to obtain authority from landowners to pursue parking charges from motorists on their behalf.
‘We audit operators’ contracts every year to ensure that they have that authority in place.
‘In rare cases where contracts do not have this clause, they are found to be in breach of our code and, where appropriate, sanctions are applied.’
A VCS spokesman said: ‘We are taking legal advice in respect of the judgment and a possible appeal.’
Mr Renshaw-Smith was unavailable for comment."
|
>> Will that set a precedent?
>>
>> Is it retrospective, meaning everyone who's ever paid a 'parking charge notice' could claim a
>> refund?
>>
>> How will it affect the new legislation making the registered keeper responsible for parking charge
>> penalties?
I suspect it's a one off. Certainly, as a decision by a District Judge, it is not a binding authority (though it may be persuasive).
The problem for the parking company is that the contract with the landownwer appeared not to provide for it to act as an agent for recovery. That is easily remedied. I'd quite like to be in the public seats when/if Mr Renshaw-Smith appears but only to see him wriggle a bit and have to apologise to the judge.
The cases in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals are about whether monies paid by contravening motorists are subject to VAT. While the decision covers both 'contractual' and 'tresspass' related arguments it is highly fact specific.
For those with time on their hands the UT decision is here:
www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf (pdf 55kb on website of HMCTS).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 31 May 12 at 10:55
|
|
Very characteristic of the Mail to get the terminology wrong! Don't they know it is a charge and not a fine
|
|
I've given up arguing the toss with my local rag (Bournemouth Echo) on that one. :-/
|
...Very characteristic of the Mail to get the terminology wrong! Don't they know it is a charge and not a fine...
Of course it's a fine, or an attempt at one.
They don't routinely charge £70 for ten minutes of parking, do they?
|
|
Well both the genuine and the spoof notices describe themselves as "Charges." one a parking one and the other a penalty one so that makes them charges the way I read it
|
|
Surely only courts, councils and plod can issue fines.
|
>> Surely only courts, councils and plod can issue fines.
>>
Only a court.
|
|
What about a library? Can I get back all those fines I paid as a kid?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 31 May 12 at 21:32
|
|
you didn't have to pay them.
|
Oh no!
Telephone rings.
"Are you Mr Fullchat?"
"Yes."
"Have you ever paid a library fine if so you may be entitled .........................................."
|
Another very full version of the Scunthorpe court ruling here
Google "HMRC V VCS" also google "Should I pay a private parking ticket" before you part with any money or even appeal
Here are some recent court rulings
When Mr Ibbotson refused to pay up, he was taken to court by VCS and ordered to pay £42.50 in costs.
But he appealed and last week a judge at Scunthorpe County Court dismissed the company’s claim and instructed VCS to give him the money back. Mr Ibbotson had learned that VCS did not have the legal go-ahead from the landowner of the Wickes store site to pursue parking charges. VCS is one of Britain’s biggest parking control companies. It operates on more than 600 sites at shopping centres, hospitals and universities all over Britain. The firm is owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith, who also runs a vehicle immobilisation operation called Mr Clampit.
The judge ordered Mr Renshaw-Smith to come to court next month to explain why he had pursued Mr Ibbotson when he had ‘no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so’. Mr Renshaw-Smith, 45, lives in a £900,000 detached house in the Derbyshire village of Barlow, five miles from the Sheffield headquarters of VCS. Last year he paid himself a salary of £766,353 according to documents lodged at Companies House – and his main company, Excel Parking Services, had a turnover of £10.3 million and an operating profit of nearly £500,000.
VCS v HMRC. In simple terms VCS's appeal was dismissed but the tribunal made decisions on a number of points wholly relevant to the PPC case. The UTT is a superior court of record and its decisions carry the weight of a High Court finding.
The appeal tribunal held:
1. VCS did not have any right to occupy land or to pursue any action in trespass (which is what VCS had claimed they were doing).
2. Such payments they received by way of "Parking Charge Notices" were not therefore a payment by way of damages and were not therefore exempt from VAT.
3. That on the basis of their standard agreement with landowners there could have been no contract formed between VCS and the motorist because its limited rights to access to the land did not extend to being able to offer the right to park.
4. The signs used by VCS cannot have effect because they have no right in law to make any offer to park in the first instance.
5. Any contract to park could only be formed between the landowner and the motorist
6. Any parking charges collected by VCS would therefore be, in effective, damages in breach of contract or trespass but because they were retained by VCS they constituted a standard-rated consideration and VAT was therefore payable against them.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 5 Jun 12 at 17:20
|
Well if this does end up with lots of retrospective claims, I wonder how long it will be before we see Mr Renshaw-Smith declare himself bankrupt and start up another similar business (not as an owner/director of course!)
|
|
this can't be used for millions of retrospective claims, this one is fairly limited. Limited to that wickes store, or possibly the wickes chain.
|
Parking company comes a cropper in court - bathtub tom
