VCS Ltd v HMRC: Application pending to Court of Appeal

As many on here will know, HMRC found that Vehicle Control Service Ltd ( a company owned by Mr Simon Renshaw-Smith) were liable to pay VAT from 04/05 to 10/09 on parking charges collected from motorists.

VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the First Tier Tax Tribunal and attempted to argue that VAT was not payable as the charges were either “damages for breach of contract” or “damages for trespass"

The Tribunal found against them and ruled that VCS Ltd (and, by implication...all other private parking companies) had no authority to issue a charge in the first place as VCS Ltd had no occupational right to the land that they patrolled and consequently; could not enter into a contract with the driver.

They ruled that monies received from motorists by VCS Ltd were in fact “services to the landowner” with whom VCS Ltd had a contract to provide parking control services. It was made clear from the First Tier Tribunal that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist.

VCS Ltd appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Tax & Chancery Chamber) where the case was considered on 6th March 2012 before Judge Roger Berner and Judge Nicholas Aleksander. They concluded that the First Tier Tribunal has been correct in that there was no contract between VCS Ltd and the motorist and as a consequence, VCS Ltd had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists who parked in breach and accordingly, that the penalty charges did not constitute damages.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Firstly it should be noted that the Upper Tribunal was established under Section 3 of the TCE Act 2007 as a Superior Court of record and accordingly, its decisions establish precedents which are bindings on lower courts.

Yesterday, a “little birdie” informed me that VCS Ltd have appealed the Upper Tribunals Order dated 2nd May and the matter is now listed at the Court of Appeal on 4th or 5th May 2013. Closer to the date one of these two dates will fall away.

The case has been listed with a time estimate of 4 hours.

Thank you, I was wondering when this would be heard. A day out is warranted !

so if the appeal is rejected does it change the fact the DVLA can continue to send keeper details to these PPC's?

Thank you, I was wondering when this would be heard. A day out is warranted !

This could well be a VERY expensive day out for VCS Ltd.

I feel something of an outing coming on.....

VCS Ltd v HMRC: Application pending to Court of Appeal

 

Yesterday, a “little birdie” informed me that VCS Ltd have appealed the Upper Tribunals Order dated 2nd May and the matter is now listed at the Court of Appeal on 4th or 5th May 2013. Closer to the date one of these two dates will fall away. [/font][/color]

 

The case has been listed with a time estimate of 4 hours.

Does your little birdie have any info on why a seemingly very late appeal/application for permission to appeal was allowed through? Although the order of the Upper Tax Tribunal was made on 2 May 2012 VCS did not file their Appellant's Notice until 16 July 2012.

I did ask the Civil Appeals Office about this back in August but their Mr Tai, Case Progression Manager said only:-

I did query how this could be the case when VCS clearly knew about the UTT's decision in May. It was being quoted at them and used against them as soon as it was published on t'internet (which I think was on or about 16 May 2012) - and the judgment itself says that it's release date was 2 May 2012.

Ultimately I was told that Deputy Master Bancroft-Rimmer said "This application was set down in time" . . . .but no explanation beyond Mr Tai's statement about the order not being available until 18 June 2012 was given.

And neither would the Civil Appeals Office provide a copy of the appellant's notice or the grounds of appeal.

My "little birdie" has given me info regarding this supposed "late appeal". Here goes:

Apparently, the "Upper Tier" Judgment is formally sent to all parties under cover of a letter. In this particular case, the letter was dated 18th June.

With allowance being given for "deemed service" the Court of Appeal records reflect that an appeal will be accepted witin 42 days of 29th June.

With regards to the Grounds of Appeal, such info is not given to the public and queries can be made either to HMRC or VCS' solicitors; Flint Bishop

I will be making more enquiries in the next few days and will post back....

I did ask HMRC but they said they couldn't supply copies of the grounds of appeal, etc without the consent of the taxpayer, VCS. Fair enough, I suppose.

VCS certainly weren't going to show it willingly. They were asked to do so when they referred to the application for PTA in a witness statement filed by their Ms Coates in another matter [where they were being sued for the return of monies extracted through clamping] - but, predictably, they refused to provide a copy.

The dodgy bunch of fekkwits even refuse to supply the other side with copies of the contracts they have with the landowner. They'll bring them along to court to show the judge but won't provide advance disclosure to the litigant on the other side.

If you have a look at the VCS v Ibbottson transcript you'll see Miss Coates says:-

Obviously??

Well, obviously you wouldn't want to provide prior disclosure of a relevant document to someone you were suing, would you.

They are devious, greedy f*ckers. Obviously.

Not unsurprising from "toothbrush Coates". That the court would tolerate it is another matter.

Wage Slaver.

You say that you spoke with HMRC regarding the grounds for appeal. I have not gone to them yet. I have send you a PM

The VCS Ibbottson case is simply stunning !!!

Wage Slaver.

 

You say that you spoke with HMRC regarding the grounds for appeal. I have not gone to them yet. I have send you a PM

When you do check the dates with them. Look in your 2013 diary

Hi,

Didn't know they sat at the weekend?????

G

It would seem that the case was actually heard today. I have not had a chance to read the Judgment in full as it was only released a few moments ago.

First glance...not good news for the VEHICLE OWNER.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.html

That judgement refers to driver and not RK and also makes mention of towing which is not illegal.

It also clearly refers to damages that VCS can collect on behalf of the LL.

This raises the question whether the contract does state that PPC can collect damages on behalf of LL and allows the defendant to examine the contract as part of their defence.

Secondly the LL stil has to prove the extent of the damages suffered which would be negligible.

I don't think the judgement si detrimental to the motorist and may work in favour of the motorist as judgement specifically relates to damages!

They also call it a parking penalty charge

VCS's clients ("clients") are owners or lawful occupiers of car

parks or land. VCS enters into a contract on standard terms and conditions with

each of the clients under which VCS agrees to provide the client with "parking

control services". There was some confusion about which contract was the

correct version. The FTT and the UT both considered a version that the parties

agreed was not the correct version. We have considered what we are assured is

the right one. No one objected to this course.

How could there be confusion about which contract was the correct one !!

"The FTT and the UT both considered a version that the parties

agreed was not the correct version. We have considered what we are assured is

the right one." Thinks. . . . .