Jump to content


tomtubby

VCS Ltd v HMRC: Application pending to the Court of Appeal !!!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2411 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:-

 

"We understand the order made on 2nd May 2012 but not available until 18th June 2012. The appellant's notice was filed on 16th July 2012 therefore it was in time."

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:-

"We manage the car park on behalf of Wickes, our client. I have got a copy of our agreement.

Obviously, it was not sent to Mr Ibbotson
." [at page 2, lines 24 and 25]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The VCS Ibbottson case is simply stunning !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

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

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also call it a parking penalty charge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !!


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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. . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...