Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC

[Surfer01]

I came across this pdf which I found to be very interesting.

probably has been posted previously but a search never brought up anything.

vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf

[BankFodder]

Thanks

 

para.39

We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.

 

para.40

In our judgment that was an error of law. On the facts of this case we do not

consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a

contract between it and the motorist.

 

Oh dear.

 

Oh dear oh dear

 

Looks as if people should go and get their money back from Simon Rickshaw-Smith

[Binary1]

Although its quite lenghthy, its a good and informative read.

Thanks Surfer01 for the link.

[borisbeaver]

Did the MD actually appear before the judge as ordered? Does anyone know the outcome?

[Crocdoc]

Did the MD actually appear before the judge as ordered? Does anyone know the outcome?

 

I think this was VCS V Ibbotson, however I have never heard the outcome.

[Surfer01]

Also see pdf

 

 

The document clearly shows on the flow chart that only the landowner can recover damages and not the PPC. Secondly there is no law that obliges the RK to supply the driver's details. Thirdly it states quite clearly that the landowner must be a member of ATA. Somehow I doubt if many landowners are ATA members.

Any one want to add anything?

guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

[SURFBOY]

The flowchart states that the "landholder" can recover damages.

The landholder can be an agent of the landowner provided he is "properly authorised" according to the document definitions.

However it does not define "properly authorised" anywhere in the document.

[Surfer01]

The PPC is not a landowner as they do not lease the land in almost all cases. They are agents of the leaseholder i.e. the retail store therefore cannot do court as the law specifically refers to landlords/leaseholders/landowners. The law also quite clearly defines the damages which is the parking charge plus an admin charge. So if you over stay 20 minutes and the charge is £1 per hour maximum damages would be £1 plus admin charge i.e. £25 for computer generated letters and DVLA check. This should be payable to the landlords/leaseholders/landowners. and not the PPC.

[lamma]

"However it does not define "properly authorised" anywhere in the document." It cannot, in each case that is a matter of the substance of the contract between the landowner/occupier and the PPC.

[Surfer01]

Can the defendant request to see a copy of the contract between the PPC and the landlord if the PPC took a motorist to court?

[Surfer01]

We have had various cases recently where PPCs have been involved, but all these relate to issues before 1st October. However have any of these cases set any precedents that may assist a defendant in a parking dispute after the 1st October 2012?

[DBC]

Small claims courts don't set precedents.

[Surfer01]

Small claims courts don't set precedents.

 

I think we all know that, however I was referring to the appeal cases like Parking Eye vs Somerfield or VCS vs HMRC which were high court cases as I am sure that the judges made rulings which favoured the motorist like in the HMRC one regarding the motorist and contracts?

[SURFBOY]

I do think , however, that the Dft should have a definition "properly authorised" in their document.

Without a definition "properly authorised" (in the context of the Dft guidelines) , means nothing at all!

[lamma]

I do think , however, that the Dft should have a definition "properly authorised" in their document.

Without a definition "properly authorised"; (in the context of the Dft guidelines) , means nothing at all!

 

It cannot, in each case that is a matter of the substance of the contract between the landowner/occupier and the PPC. I refer you to the Law of Agency. It means exactly what it says, they must be properly authorised. As for Contract disclosure start with CPR part 31 http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#IDACBSBB

[BankFodder]

I'm not aware that any precedents have been set. The Court of Appeal case against Somerfields was focused upon the effect on the contract of Parking Eye's dishonesty, deceit and false representation.

In this case they were specific to Parking Eye.

The other matters which are of more general interest - such as Parking Eye's abuse of any authority to being a legal action, or the level of the charges demanded were not the focus of the judgment - and so although they are highly persuasive - and all but binding upon the County Courts, they are not binding precedents.

However, it would be a very brave judge at County Court level who would refuse to follow these opinions of the Court of Appeal.

 

I think that we can safely say that anyone who has received a demand for money is at least entitled to have sight of the parking management contract insofar as it shows that the parking company has the power - not just the authority - to bring a legal action, and also to receive a full breakdown of how the money demanded amounts to costs incurred by the alleged infraction by the motorist.

[Surfer01]

PE vs Somerfield with reference to last paragraph "The case is important because it introduced firmly the notion of proportionality into the doctrine of illegality in the field of contract law: that is, the Court effectively held that the claimant will only be deprived of the entirety of its remedy where that would be a proportionate response to the illegality in question."

 

The judgement makes it very clear that only Somerfield were entitled to any monies extorted from drivers.

 

'Under the ParkingEye scheme, after that had expired, a charge was imposed. The Judge found that sufficient notice of the charges was given to create a contract between the motorist and Somerfield whereby the motorist was contractually bound to pay Somerfield the charges of which notice was given if he or she overstayed.'

 

Isn't this a precedent?

[Surfer01]

BTW as PE are offering a service and VAT has to be paid on doing a "service" surely they should have a VAT number on each "ticket" they issue?

[BankFodder]

PE vs Somerfield with reference to last paragraph "The case is important because it introduced firmly the notion of proportionality into the doctrine of illegality in the field of contract law: that is, the Court effectively held that the claimant will only be deprived of the entirety of its remedy where that would be a proportionate response to the illegality in question."

 

The judgement makes it very clear that only Somerfield were entitled to any monies extorted from drivers.

 

'Under the ParkingEye scheme, after that had expired, a charge was imposed. The Judge found that sufficient notice of the charges was given to create a contract between the motorist and Somerfield whereby the motorist was contractually bound to pay Somerfield the charges of which notice was given if he or she overstayed.'

 

Isn't this a precedent?

I don't think that it is because so far as I understand, the locus of PE to bring a court action depends upon their status within their relationship with the carpark owner. This means that in this respect the CA judgment is highly specific. You could say that it forms a precedent to the extent that "where there is an identical contract/relationship between a landowner and a management company purporting to act on the landowner's behalf, then that management company has no locus to bring an action.

However this would not form an general binding principle that management companies may never sue a motorist directly.

I can see a number of ways that the landowner/management company relationship could be altered so that the management company does gain the necessary status and so I don't think that it would be possible to prevent it without an Act of Parliament - which would never happen.

[caro]

Going back to your original question surfer, I'd be surprised if anything post 1 oct 2012 had reached a higher court yet given that it's only just over 3 months ago and our courts don't tend to move that fast.

[Surfer01]

I don't think that it is because so far as I understand, the locus of PE to bring a court action depends upon their status within their relationship with the carpark owner. This means that in this respect the CA judgment is highly specific. You could say that it forms a precedent to the extent that "where there is an identical contract/relationship between a landowner and a management company purporting to act on the landowner's behalf, then that management company has no locus to bring an action.

However this would not form an general binding principle that management companies may never sue a motorist directly.

I can see a number of ways that the landowner/management company relationship could be altered so that the management company does gain the necessary status and so I don't think that it would be possible to prevent it without an Act of Parliament - which would never happen.

 

As I understand it, in order for a motorist to raise a valid defence in court, the motorist would need to to ascertain the relationship between the PPC and the leaseholder I could ask them to produce a copy of the contract. Is this correct?

[Surfer01]

Going back to your original question surfer, I'd be surprised if anything post 1 oct 2012 had reached a higher court yet given that it's only just over 3 months ago and our courts don't tend to move that fast.

 

Surely not much changed with the Act anyway and previous case law could be used in some aspects?

[caro]

Surely not much changed with the Act anyway and previous case law could be used in some aspects?

Absolutely.

[BankFodder]

As I understand it, in order for a motorist to raise a valid defence in court, the motorist would need to to ascertain the relationship between the PPC and the leaseholder I could ask them to produce a copy of the contract. Is this correct?

In addition to any other defences, the motorist's defence would probably begin with a para.1 -

"The claimant does not have locus to bring this claim and the defendant puts the claimant to proof on this issue.

If the court finds that the claimant does have locus, then

par.2

para.3

 

etc"

 

Something like that, anyway.

 

In other words the defendant motorist has merely to raise the issue and it then falls to the claimant to establish their locus by proof.

[BankFodder]

It might be that in the light of recent decisions that the claimant begins their POC by asserting that they do have locus.

In that case the defendant's first para would be

It is not admitted that the claimant has locus as alleged and puts the claimant to proof on this issue