Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC

[Surfer01]

Perhaps those more versed in law can decide on the legal aspects of the following question;

 

A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer, you then accept the offer by visiting the store and purchasing goods. I assume at that point that there is a contract in place as an offer was made and then accepted. The retailer has not attached any terms and conditions relating to parking on their private land. I would assume that the retailer is now the principle in the agreement or contract.

However while parked on their land you are issued with a "ticket" by the PPC monitoring the parking area for the retailer because you overstayed by 20 minutes while concluding the contract. On entering the parking area although there are numerous signs at the entrance to parking area, you did not read the signs as nothing was mentioned in the offer about parking conditions. By the way how many reasonable people stop and read these signs fully?

As you never read the sign technically you have not agreed to any contract or terms and conditions. Also the PPC is a sub-contractor to the retailer who made the offer and is not a principle in the original contract therefore I would assume that the first contract would over ride the second contract.

Would you be able to use any of the above as part of a defence in case involving parking on private land?

[lamma]

"A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer" An offer of what exactly ?Aadverts just show prices. How (do you believe that) an advert can form a contract ? A merchant can refuse to sell to anyone and the sale contract only happens, if it happens, in the store.

[Binary1]

Perhaps those more versed in law can decide on the legal aspects of the following question;

 

A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer, you then accept the offer by visiting the store and purchasing goods. I assume at that point that there is a contract in place as an offer was made and then accepted. The retailer has not attached any terms and conditions relating to parking on their private land. I would assume that the retailer is now the principle in the agreement or contract.

However while parked on their land you are issued with a "ticket" by the PPC monitoring the parking area for the retailer because you overstayed by 20 minutes while concluding the contract. On entering the parking area although there are numerous signs at the entrance to parking area, you did not read the signs as nothing was mentioned in the offer about parking conditions. By the way how many reasonable people stop and read these signs fully?

As you never read the sign technically you have not agreed to any contract or terms and conditions. Also the PPC is a sub-contractor to the retailer who made the offer and is not a principle in the original contract therefore I would assume that the first contract would over ride the second contract.

Would you be able to use any of the above as part of a defence in case involving parking on private land?

 

I get exactly what you mean Surfer01, and I would say it could be a good arguing point against the 'highway robbers'.

If you read and understand a 'contract' and agree to be bound by the terms thats fine. But if you don't read a 'contract' and dont even know it existed, how can you have agreed to it???? As you say, the contract is really with the person who is supplying the goods and the land owner from whom you purchased goods from in their store.

[Surfer01]

"A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer" An offer of what exactly ?Aadverts just show prices. How (do you believe that) an advert can form a contract ? A merchant can refuse to sell to anyone and the sale contract only happens, if it happens, in the store.

 

Surely an advertisement is stating the the retailer is making an offer? They are offering to sell it. From the points you raised how can a PPC believe that you have accepted their contract because you read their sign?

[Surfer01]

If you get a PPC "ticket" where they use ANPR cameras, surely they need to prove that you parked up for the time in question and then exceeded their limit. Maybe the car park was full when you first went in and it took you 20 minutes to find parking. I guess if it ever went to court, this would be another defence to make them look foolish.

[DBC]

Also, would't they have to produce some sort of calibration certificate to show that the time-stamps were accurate?

[renegadeimp]

Their calibration certificates are normally registered already. dont count on using that as a defence.

[DBC]

I doubt if many private parking companies go to that trouble.

[Surfer01]

Reading through Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 regarding parking, section 7 & 8 refer to a creditor. Can you be a creditor without a credit licence? Would a PPC have a credit licence?

[Dublindel]

A creditor is a person or company who are LEGITIMATELY owed money. A credit licence is for trading in cash to put it simply

[Surfer01]

Doesn't the Protection of Freedom Act state in section 7 & 8 that the notice has to be fixed to the vehicle prior to it leaving the car park which is on private land?

[DBC]

Originally that was the case, but an amendment was appended to the bill to allow "ANPR evidence".

[Tony P]

Interesting point. Not the Credit Licence but the legitimacy of being a Creditor.

 

If PPC speculative invoices are not prima facie enforceable debts, the recipient cannot be a Creditor - therefore the FoI Act does not apply ?

 

If so - yet another distortion of the Law by PPCs claiming otherwise.

[Surfer01]

When you pay for the parking you normally have to pay cash. When they send you demands they ask for cash. The moment you do not pay they are extending a loan to you to pay their silly charges after 28 days. A council or the police are not known as creditors, but a PPC is referred to as a creditor?

 

Have a read through this and decide whether a PPC is a creditor or not. If not then they cannot use Protection of Freedom Act. If not it seems they need a credit licence as per this article which states the following;

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 most businesses that provide goods and services on credit or for hire, lend money or provide debt collecting, debt counselling or debt adjusting services to consumers need to have a credit licence.

Trading in credit activities without a credit licence is a criminal offence, for more information see penalties and requirements.

 

I goes on to say;

If your business sells goods or services on credit, offers goods for hire or provides debt counselling or debt adjusting services to consumers, you almost certainly need to be licensed by the OFT. Surely the 28 days grace before chasing up an "invoice" or is offering credit? As the PPC state you entered into a contract and you have 28 dasy to pay, that is extending credit?

Engaging in licensable credit activities without a credit licence is a criminal offence, and can result in a fine and/or imprisonment. Businesses cannot normally legally enforce a credit agreement if they are not licensed.

[Conniff]

But surely money claimed by a PPC is a penalty with a request to pay so not actually a debt as no money is legally owed. It's not a debt, it is a claim for damages.

[Surfer01]

 

Aren't the PPCs stating that it is not a penalty but a charge as they cannot impose penalties. They are seeking damages which is another issue. The Act seems to refer to "parking charges" and not damages? How can they impose a charge if no contract exists?

[Conniff]

The courts have said it is a penalty when they threw it out.

 

They can impose a penalty, but they can't use a legal process to enforce it.

[DBC]

What is a "parking charge".Is it the fee you have to pay to park (except in free car parks) , or is it the sum of money demanded on a so-called "parking charge notice"

[Surfer01]

That is not very clear in the Freedom Act so can probably be argued that it is the £1 you never paid to stay over the free one hour.

[Conniff]

A PPC invoice is neither, you can only claim damages for a breach of contract, so it must be an invitation to pay them damages.

[Surfer01]

Isn't damages associated with trespass rather than a parking charge? How can they claim damages because you never paid the £1? As they are not the LL or the leaseholder of the land how can they claim damages? They have permission from the landowner to control parking, but do they have permission from the LL to claim damages on behalf of the LL and keep the damages paid?

[Conniff]

Let me just repeat what was said in court. [not verbatim] and I've just rounded up the sums to make it easier.

 

So your charge is £100 or if paid within 14 days £50. Which one is the true estimate of damages? If it's the £100 then why are you willing to make a loss and accept £50?

If the true estimate is £50 then why are you adding on £50 as that can't then be a true estimate of losses. They are penalty charges and case dismissed.

 

I'll dig out the transcript of this case and add it to my signature later.

[ericsbrother]

to bring it back to the question, Dublindel's answer is what you need to know. To add to that, the PPC may very well claim they are in better financial shape than they really are by claiming that all the unpaid invoices are "debts" and persuade banks to lend them money on the back of it.

If you buy something online, you become a creditor of that store until your goods arrive. If you buy HMV gift vouchers you soon realise you are an unsecured creditor as the banks are secured creditors and thus first in line on the dissolution of the company and you are likely to get nothing.

If you are loaning money, to make an enforceable contract that involves charges or interest you have to be a licensed credit broker which is authorised by the FSA. Banks, insurance companies, Furniturland and other shops that let you have stuff on tick all have to register or get a good kicking from the regulator. Now, your PPC is in a strange position here because without a FSA licence cannot charge interest or most kind of fees upon its charges as they are supposedly losses which are recoverable but the courts dont seem to have picked up on that one, presumably because when it gets to court they lose on other matters anyway so the questions havent been asked of a judge. I would like to see that question asked one day, though not as an alternative to all the other ways they get it wrong.

[Surfer01]

I think I posted the original link unless you are referring to PE vs Somerfield. I have both judgements on my laptop in pdf format.

I am aware of the above, but just looking for another angle to kick them in the teeth again!

[Tony P]

Back to the damages argument.

 

Damages are not taxable in the hands of the recipient as they don't represent a gain - just restoring the position to as before the event giving cause.

 

However, HMRC appeals tribunals/courts have said PPC receipts from these sources should include VAT that has to be accounted for. That must deem the monies as a trading receipt, albeit perhaps voluntarily given, and not damages?

 

A real can of worms!