Private Parking Charge Notices [PCN] - Megathread - ALL questions in here

[MobileB 10]

And that judgement is likely to be appealed again by HMRC. The judgement leaves it possible for a lot of companies turning over millions of pounds to avoid VAT.

 

They wont want that......

 

Except that HMRC have never appealed a case to the Supreme Court which is the only court they can go to. They have defended a handful when they have won at appeal but never appealed on there themselves. That is if the Appeal Court judges have given them leave to appeal. It doesn't state in the judgement.

[Penistone999 10]

Except that HMRC have never appealed a case to the Supreme Court which is the only court they can go to. They have defended a handful when they have won at appeal but never appealed on there themselves. That is if the Appeal Court judges have given them leave to appeal. It doesn't state in the judgement.

 

This is about VCS trying to dodge VAT ,and has no bearing on parking invoices what so ever. Scam invoices handed out by the likes of VCS and others will NEVER be enforcable in law , no matter weather VCS manage to dodge their obligations of paying VAT.

[MobileB 10]

This is about VCS trying to dodge VAT ,and has no bearing on parking invoices what so ever. Scam invoices handed out by the likes of VCS and others will NEVER be enforcable in law , no matter weather VCS manage to dodge their obligations of paying VAT.

 

I won't get into an argument about the whys and what fors but originally you said "The signs put up by parking companies in car parks are worthless because a parking company cannot undertake a contract with a motorist. See the HMRC V`s VCS ruling ." An Appeals Court ruling, which is a legal binding judgment that can be used in other cases, has said there is a legal contract between the motorist and the parking company. And now you say it has no bearing.

 

That is a good a change of stance of what I have ever seen!

 

You and Eckload are offering advice to people about these things for whatever personal reasons you have. I would seriously suggest being careful as to what you do and also for the site. If someone was to follow your advice and they were to lose as a consequence I think they could have recourse on you. This is just one example of where you have changed your course with the flick of a wrist. If someone was going to court using the defence you have suggested, that is the contract is not binding, they would be having to change their defence now and that would not be easy.

Edited March 14, 2013 by MobileB
typo

[Penistone999 10]

I won't get into an argument about the whys and what fors but originally you said "The signs put up by parking companies in car parks are worthless because a parking company cannot undertake a contract with a motorist. See the HMRC V`s VCS ruling ." An Appeals Court ruling, which is a legal binding judgment that can be used in other cases, has said there is a legal contract between the motorist and the parking company. And now you say it has no bearing.

 

That is a good a change of stance of what I have ever seen!

 

It has no bearing because parking invoices issued by PPC`s CANNOT be enforced. Its as simple as that . VCS may manage to dodge their responsibilities regarding VAT because of this Ruling, but it has no bearing on the validity of parking invoices they ,and every other PPC issue. They will remain unenforcable .

[KeefisGod 10]

Apologies if this is a bit long ,,,I'm no expert on Appeal Court rulings but I have posted before that I have personal experience of a PCN which I did not pay. In my humble opinion whether or not the Appeal Court has ruled over a contract being agreed by a notice on a wall is irrelevant from a practical point of view. From my layman's understanding the key factor is that the landowner or his agent have to prove 'material loss'. Therefore, if you park on someone's land where no charge is normally paid, they don't like it and they slap on a PCN they have suffered no 'material loss'. If they then go on to make unwarranted and illegal demands for money they run the risk of breaking the law themselves.I believe I'm correct in saying no parking firm has ever taken a motorist to County Court in pursuit of a PCN case. I posted the following in another thread in December. But I forgot to mention that the demands stopped after I had a full and frank discussion with the southern based solicitor who rakes in the cash for VCS:

 

"I have personal experience not of Meadowhall but Centertainment. Briefly went to cinema nowhere to park so filled a gap when car pulled out of gap in unauthorised area. When we returned to car we had a ticket from Vehicle Control Services I think it was for £80 increasing to £120 if not paid within a week. I sent a letter saying I would not be paying. Loads of increasingly threateneing letters followed and got redder and redder... threats of courts.. bailiffs etc... (You now owe £160 etc) then they stopped. Basically as others have said it is private land and contract law and they have to prove material loss and there is none.Most people are intimidated and pay up -- it is different when you are parked on the highway or get a ticket from local council."

I would not presume to advise anyone what to do in the same circumstances but I would certainly do the same myself.

[Eckolad 10]

you know I miss the old bonjon and his sidekick alien

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[cgksheff 44]

I won't get into an argument about the whys and what fors but originally you said "The signs put up by parking companies in car parks are worthless because a parking company cannot undertake a contract with a motorist. See the HMRC V`s VCS ruling ." An Appeals Court ruling, which is a legal binding judgment that can be used in other cases, has said there is a legal contract between the motorist and the parking company. And now you say it has no bearing.

 

That is a good a change of stance of what I have ever seen!

 

.........

 

I blame the parents!

 

People who cannot read and understand a document then start to spout their cobblers make me laugh.

 

That appeal is all about contracts that are in existence because they are for Parking Permits!!!! and when the holders of those permits contravene the terms of their permit.

 

Geddit?

[Walkley Dave 10]

... From my layman's understanding the key factor is that the landowner or his agent have to prove 'material loss'. Therefore, if you park on someone's land where no charge is normally paid, they don't like it and they slap on a PCN they have suffered no 'material loss'. If they then go on to make unwarranted and illegal demands for money they run the risk of breaking the law themselves.I believe I'm correct in saying no parking firm has ever taken a motorist to County Court in pursuit of a PCN case. I posted the following in another thread in December. But I forgot to mention that the demands stopped after I had a full and frank discussion with the southern based solicitor who rakes in the cash for VCS:

 

".......Most people are intimidated and pay up -- it is different when you are parked on the highway or get a ticket from local council."

I would not presume to advise anyone what to do in the same circumstances but I would certainly do the same myself.

 

The fact remains that private companies cannot fine people. Thus the speculative invoice they leave on your car is just that.

 

To enforce it they have to go to court. And when they do, they lose - and when they lose and the case is covered in the local press - more people find out that they don't have to pay these speculative invoices.

 

There is a county court case covering this issue.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59380&mode=threaded&pid=564302

[KeefisGod 10]

The fact remains that private companies cannot fine people. Thus the speculative invoice they leave on your car is just that.

 

To enforce it they have to go to court. And when they do, they lose - and when they lose and the case is covered in the local press - more people find out that they don't have to pay these speculative invoices.

 

There is a county court case covering this issue.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59380&mode=threaded&pid=564302

 

I stand corrected on the County Court case.... as well as their chance of losing and bad publicity there is the question of being cost effective ... they are better employed hassling people by phone and letter than the expense of taking it to court because most people cave in under the pressure,

[Penistone999 10]

I stand corrected on the County Court case.... as well as their chance of losing and bad publicity there is the question of being cost effective ... they are better employed hassling people by phone and letter than the expense of taking it to court because most people cave in under the pressure,

 

They will work on a percentage of people feeling intimidated and scared by their bullying tactics and paying up. Add to this the bare faced lies they tell on their invoices and subsequent threatening letters , they make their money by pressuring people who dont know the whole thing is a scam by the parking companies.

[KeefisGod 10]

They will work on a percentage of people feeling intimidated and scared by their bullying tactics and paying up. Add to this the bare faced lies they tell on their invoices and subsequent threatening letters , they make their money by pressuring people who dont know the whole thing is a scam by the parking companies.

 

Absolutely spot on.. if my recollection is correct the call centre from where the calls and threatening texts are sent and the law firm share the same address... I imagine that's a coincidence

[Penistone999 10]

Absolutely spot on.. if my recollection is correct the call centre from where the calls and threatening texts are sent and the law firm share the same address... I imagine that's a coincidence

 

I take it you have had the threatening correspondence from Roxborgh`s and Graham Whites solicitors then. ?