Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Exposing Premier Parking Solutions' shenanigans


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4593 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

DSC00224.jpg

 

I'm in the process of appealing a clamping charge levied by the infamous Premier Parking Solutions [PPS].

 

I've read all the stickies and spent a lot of time getting my head around the BPA's Code of Conduct and Approved Operator Scheme and, as far as I'm concerned, PPS fall a long way short of the standards demanded.

 

I'm well aware they will, almost certainly, turn down my appeal at which point I will, happily, initiate proceedings against them in the small claims court.

 

In the meantime, I was hoping some of my fellow CAGgers might share their thoughts on the signage pictured in the above photo; as you might imagine, I have my own thoughts but I'd like to know what you guys think.

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

This link should provide a slightly bigger copy of the photo...

 

http://s210.photobucket.com/albums/bb49/damienmills/Premier%20Parking%20Solutions/

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, apologies for posting this a second time - if a moderator could remove my earlier thread I'd be most grateful - but I cocked up the title of the original thread and it wasn't generating a great deal of attention. In addition, the attached photo was ridiculously small. This one should, fingers crossed, be a bit bigger [though you may need to click on it before it becomes big enough to read clearly].

 

http://s210.photobucket.com/albums/b...g%20Solutions/

 

I'm in the process of appealing a clamping charge levied by the infamous Premier Parking Solutions [PPS].

 

I've read all the stickies and spent a lot of time getting my head around the BPA's Code of Conduct and Approved Operator Scheme and, as far as I'm concerned, PPS fall a long way short of the standards demanded.

 

I'm well aware they will, almost certainly, turn down my appeal at which point I will, happily, initiate proceedings against them in the small claims court.

 

In the meantime, I was hoping some of my fellow CAGgers might share their thoughts on the signage pictured in the above photo; as you might imagine, I have my own thoughts but I'd like to know what you guys think.

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having cocked up the title of this thread - as a result of which it seems to have attracted little response - I've started another.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?289803-PLEASE-HELP-Is-this-signage-up-to-scratch-!&p=3253011#post3253011

 

If a moderator could delete this one I'd be extremely grateful. Thanks.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clamping on private land is hopefully comming to an end under new legislation. Obviously that dosn't help your case. The sign to me seems pretty clear providing it is adequately displayed. You are correct in thinking that an appeal would be a waste of time and your only option in trying to get your money back would be the small claims court. Your case would have to demonstrate that the clampers acted unreasonably and outside of the terms and conditions of the car park. If the signage is clearly displayed then such an action is not guaranteed to be sucessfull. Can you tell us their reasons for clamping you?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fred.

 

You've mentioned having your threads merged in a previous post. I don't know how often the site team turn up here, but you can contact them by clicking the black triangle at the bottom of one of your posts. Then you can 'report' it and ask them to merge your posts together.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clamping on private land is hopefully comming to an end under new legislation. Obviously that dosn't help your case. The sign to me seems pretty clear providing it is adequately displayed. You are correct in thinking that an appeal would be a waste of time and your only option in trying to get your money back would be the small claims court. Your case would have to demonstrate that the clampers acted unreasonably and outside of the terms and conditions of the car park. If the signage is clearly displayed then such an action is not guaranteed to be sucessfull. Can you tell us their reasons for clamping you?

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

You'll excuse me if I'm brief but I'm just about to go out of the door; I'll reply in more detail and respond to any further thoughts anyone might have a little later.

 

I agree the sign does seem fairly clear - at least, up to a point. The BPA's Code of Conduct says:

 

A8.2c Signs mist be in plain and intelligible language and give the circumstances under which vehicles will be immobilised or removed.

 

Now, others may disagree, but I think there's a case to be made that this sign doesn't make clear the circumstances under which a vehicle may be immobilised. Sure, it says, 'Failure to comply with any of these conditions may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice, being wheel clamped and/or removed without notice.'

 

Fair enough but which of these conditions have I failed to apply with [having bought a ticket and been a few minutes late back to the car park]? I'm sure they will attempt to cite [4] Do not leave the car park without displaying a valid ticket or permit during the chargeable period'. But I didn't; rather, I left the car park with a bona fide ticket and was a few minutes late returning. Nowhere does it say this will result in immobilisation.

 

If you guys think this is clutching at straws then, please, tell me - I do, in any case, have a whole lot more aces up my sleeve [more later] - but I'm fairly switched on in situations such as this and, genuinely, had no idea of the likely repercussions for such a relatively minor indiscretion at the point I left the car park.

 

Once again, your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't go where you are going - at least not for now.

 

I would simply state that you did not agree to your car being clamped and no circumstances existed that entitled the clamping party to immobilise your vehicle. That's all you need to say for now.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie

 

Can you elaborate on your reasoning?!

 

Ta muchly

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under English Law, at present, your car can be lawfully clamped if it is shown that you have consented to the risk of it being clamped. Other stuff applies to but that's the basic position.

You need to deny that you agreed to run the risk. IMHO you dilute that denial if you say that you agreed to run the risk in some circumstances but not those that supposedly led to your vehicle being clamped.

 

Best to keep it simple at this stage IMHO.

 

Deny consent in a letter to clamper and land owner in a LBA and if deadline for response passes issue proceedings against both. Detail comes later.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under English Law, at present, your car can be lawfully clamped if it is shown that you have consented to the risk of it being clamped. Other stuff applies to but that's the basic position.

You need to deny that you agreed to run the risk. IMHO you dilute that denial if you say that you agreed to run the risk in some circumstances but not those that supposedly led to your vehicle being clamped.

 

Best to keep it simple at this stage IMHO.

 

Deny consent in a letter to clamper and land owner in a LBA and if deadline for response passes issue proceedings against both. Detail comes later.

 

Thanks, once again, for getting back to me.

 

I do, I think, understand the logic of what you are saying. At the same time, while I'm ready to be convinced, saying that I didn't consent to being clamped just seems a bit too simple.

 

As I said, I am, at present, in the process of appealing to the immobilisation company who, I have no doubt, will turn down my appeal. However, I thought it would be in my interests as and when I proceed to court to be able to demonstrate that I had at least attempted to play their 'game'.

 

The argument I outlined above was only going to be a small part of my appeal in which, among other things, I had also intended to cite :

 

[1] Their inability to provide details of their appeal process [despite my asking the clamper for 'em];

 

[2] Aforementioned clamper's failure to show me his SIA badge [though he did give me his number which is, assuming it's him, a valid one];

 

[3] Doubts about whether they have the written authorisation of the landlord to carry out parking enforcement on the site; I don't doubt they're there at the landlord's behest but I've asked them and the landlord for confirmation that such an agreement exists and, if it does, to see a copy and no such confirmation has been forthcoming. Indeed, when I rang the landlord he told me he 'wasn't prepared to answer that question' and hung up rather abruptly;

 

[4] Concerns about the parking company's timekeeping. I didn't realise at the time that the BPA Code of Conduct recommends a grace period of at least 15 minutes but am fairly certain that I'd returned to my car within this time. However, the time on the hand-written receipt I received was out by more than an hour until I pointed this out to the clamper and he changed the hour [though not the minutes]. Coincidentally, lol, the time on the debit card receipt [which shows the name of a now-defunct company] was also more than an hour out, a fact subsequently confirmed by my bank.

 

[5] Their inability to provide me with copies of the date and time-marked photos [they claim to have taken] showing the position of my car relative to the signs warning of clamping.

 

Off the top of my head - and, you'll appreciate, it's still early in the morning! - the points raised above were going to form the basis of my appeal.

 

As and when I proceed to the small claims court I was going to adopt a slightly different approach based on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.pdf

 

And, in particular, the parking firm's failure to honour commitments made in their Code of Conduct [see Page 18].

 

FAILING TO HONOUR COMMITMENTS MADE IN A CODE OF CONDUCT

 

7.11 The third category of commercial practices prohibited as misleading actions is that where:

• the trader has undertaken to be bound by a code of conduct (or code of practice), and indicates that he is bound by it in the commercial practice,

and

• the trader fails to comply with a firm and verifiable commitment in that code,

and

• the average consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a result

 

I'm off to work in a minute and so don't have time to list all the areas in which the parking firm is non-compliant just now but, rest assured, there are many and lots of 'em are major.

 

As ever, I'd be interested in the thoughts of my fellow CAGgers. Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some irrelevant points there.

 

They don't have to do anything apart from:

 

• Make sure their signs are clear and prominent and that they communicate the risk of clamping for reasonable reasons and for a reasonable release fee. Company name and details need to on.

• Have a contract with the landowner

• Be SIA Licenced

• Wear SIA ID and that you can see it

• Put their SIA number and name is on the receipt. Company name and details need to be on there.

 

What aspects are you claiming on? Remember not every clamping incidence is automatically a case of the clampers being at fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some irrelevant points there.

 

They don't have to do anything apart from:

 

• Make sure their signs are clear and prominent and that they communicate the risk of clamping for reasonable reasons and for a reasonable release fee. Company name and details need to on.

• Have a contract with the landowner

• Be SIA Licenced

• Wear SIA ID and that you can see it

• Put their SIA number and name is on the receipt. Company name and details need to be on there.

 

What aspects are you claiming on? Remember not every clamping incidence is automatically a case of the clampers being at fault.

 

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts; it's appreciated.

 

When you ask 'what aspects are you claiming on' you are, I take it, referring to any claim I might make in the small claims court [rather than my appeal to the parking firm]?

 

Assuming this is the case then, as I said, my intention at this point in time is to base my claim on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations [for link, see above]. As I read it, if the clamping firm claims to adhere to the BPA's Code of Conduct - and this was a factor in my parking where I did - but, in reality, does no such thing then there's an argument that any contract I might or might not have entered into is, in effect, invalidated.

 

At least, that's my reading of it though, as ever, if others think I've got it all wrong then, do, please, say.

 

Aside from this, I've asked the clampers to confirm whether they have a contract with the landowner and they've been unwilling/unable to do so and the guy who clamped me wasn't able to show me his SIA badge, though the membership no. he gave me does appear to be valid.

 

With regard to the contract with the landowner how do I go about establishing whether any such contract exists [given neither the clampers or the landowners will be drawn on this]? In a similar vein, what rights do I have as regards obtaining copies of the photos the clamper claimed to have taken [given the BPA's Code of Conduct says I have the right to see 'em but the clampers aren't, thus far, playing ball]?

 

As ever, I'd welcome any thoughts or, better still, constructive criticisms on on the direction in which I'm heading.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondered whether anyone had any further thoughts.

 

*Crosses fingers*

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Al27 mentioned about having the company's details on the sign and I think there is mileage in that.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some irrelevant points there.

 

They don't have to do anything apart from:

 

• Make sure their signs are clear and prominent and that they communicate the risk of clamping for reasonable reasons and for a reasonable release fee. Company name and details need to on.

• Have a contract with the landowner

• Be SIA Licenced

• Wear SIA ID and that you can see it

• Put their SIA number and name is on the receipt. Company name and details need to be on there.

 

What aspects are you claiming on? Remember not every clamping incidence is automatically a case of the clampers being at fault.

 

Been away for a few days but back now and needing to submit my appeal within the next 24 hours. That being the case, I'd be delighted to hear from anyone who'd like to share their thoughts and opinions.

 

Firstly, I'd appreciate if anyone - especially Al27 - is able to clarify the following [with regard to the above]...

 

[1] Are the five bullet points listed above grounds for an appeal, for a claim against the clamping company in the small claims court or both?!

 

[2] If you look at the sign next to the ticket machine...

 

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb49/damienmills/Premier%20Parking%20Solutions/DSC00224.jpg

 

... you will see it doesn't give either the company's name or details [as Al27's post suggests it should]; how significant, or otherwise, in the scheme of things is this?

 

[3] How do I go about ascertaining whether there is any contract with the landowner when neither party is willing to divulge this information [despite the BPA's Code of Conduct stating that the parking firm has an obligation to do so]? For the record, I have no doubt the clampers are operating at the behest of the landowner but I can't help wondering if they may have overlooked some of the 'formalities', ie a written contract.

 

[4] The guy who clamped/released my car was unable to show me his SIA badge though he did write down his number - which appears to be valid - but it would be my word against his on this which, I'm guessing, means it doesn't count for much... would you agree?!

 

[5] Also, while Al27 makes no reference to it, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that the receipt should include details of the site at which I was clamped; mine simply says 'SITE: DCH', which might mean something to the clamper but doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering whether the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 could be utilised by people, such as myself, who've been clamped by a firm which is signed up to the BPA's code of conduct but fails to adhere to it...

 

FAILING TO HONOUR COMMITMENTS MADE IN A CODE OF CONDUCT

 

7.11 The third category of commercial practices prohibited as misleading actions is that where:

• the trader has undertaken to be bound by a code of conduct (or code of practice), and indicates that he is bound by it in the commercial practice,

and

• the trader fails to comply with a firm and verifiable commitment in that code,

and

• the average consumer takes, or is likely to take, a different decision as a result.

 

 

The parking firm which clamped me has failed to comply with a whole host of 'firm and verifiable commitments' in the BPA's code of conduct. This being the case, am I right in thinking I could use this as the basis of a claim in the small claims court?!

 

Thoughts please.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would also be interested to hear people's thoughts on the following...

 

receipt.jpg

 

debitcardreceipt.jpg

 

... and, in particular, the discrepancies between the name of the company on the receipt and the debit card receipt. Also, the timing on the debit card machine was out by more than an hour - as it was on the other receipt until I pointed it out - which begs a few questions to a cynic like me; surely, a receipt is a legal document and, as such, there must be some obligation to get the details right?!

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company details on the written 'receipt' may be explained as it being a 'trading as' name. I would agree that the printed receipt should be more accurate than it is and also I cannot see a VAT number anywhere. The main issue here is the absence of any conatct or company details on the sign. If you get clamped, who are you supposed to call... Ghostbusters perhaps?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the experts will be along later so dont take this for gospel, BPA is just a private parking members club and as such a load of old rubbish and I dont think this club members rules would be covered/recognised by unfair trading regs 2008.

 

dpick

 

I fully accept what you say about the BPA, however, having spent some time studying the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, I don't think that's the point.

 

Rather, there are lots of parking companies which make a great play of their BPA membership and, in turn, their adherence to its code of conduct. Most people would, I think, be more inclined to use a car park operated by a firm that claimed to adhere to this code than one operated by a firm which made no such claims.

 

If it can be proven that a firm rides roughshod over the code of conduct - and that its supposed adherence to it was a factor in one's choice of car park - then, it seems to me, this is a clear case of unfair trading.

 

That said, I'd welcome the thoughts of others more knowledgeable about the law than me.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

The company details on the written 'receipt' may be explained as it being a 'trading as' name. I would agree that the printed receipt should be more accurate than it is and also I cannot see a VAT number anywhere. The main issue here is the absence of any conatct or company details on the sign. If you get clamped, who are you supposed to call... Ghostbusters perhaps?

 

Premier Parking Solutions has various trading names, however, Sapphire Security ain't one of 'em. It's a different company which, as far as I can ascertain, is now defunct.

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/0218555bdb83028d7078b636e2ac4cca/compdetails

 

I've already queried the lack of a VAT number and was told that this car park is 'VAT exempt'. I asked the question because: [1] I was initially told the clamping fee was £82.50, when I queried this I was told in what was, clearly, a well-rehearsed line that the additional £17.50 was VAT [yes, I know the VAT on £82.50 isn't £17.50]; [2] The prices quoted on the sign are, allegedly, inclusive of VAT; and [3] Unless I'm reading it wrong, private car parks operated by a third party cannot be VAT exempt.

 

Some parking site owners contract out the management and operation of their parking sites and allow the contractor to retain all or part of the penalties collected. Any such payments retained by the contractor will constitute further consideration for their services supplied to the parking site owner and are subject to VAT.

 

 

Once again, I'm still very keen to hear the thoughts and opinions of others on the questions [1-5] posed in post 15, above.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...