Private residential underground parking charge notice

daveiron wrote:Here you are ; they are vat registered ,even if its zero rated they must
provide a vat invoice
VAT no 278651756

https://ukparkingsolution.co.uk/

The ambiguity around the issue of supplying a VAT invoice, from what I've researched is in the Value Added Tax Regs 1995.
(a)makes a taxable supply in the United Kingdom to a taxable person

Does this not mean both have to be registered for VAT, otherwise they have no legal obligation to provide one?



Obligation to provide a VAT invoice

13. —

(1) Save as otherwise provided in these Regulations, where a registered person—

(a)makes a taxable supply in the United Kingdom to a taxable person, or
(b)makes a supply of goods or services other than an exempt supply to a person in another member State, or
(c)receives a payment on account in respect of a supply he has made or intends to make from a person in another member State,
he shall provide such persons as are mentioned above with a VAT invoice.

(2) The particulars of the VAT chargeable on a supply of goods described in paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Act shall be provided, on a sale by auction, by the auctioneer, and, where the sale is otherwise than by auction, by the person selling the goods, on a document containing the particulars prescribed in regulation 14(1); and such a document issued to the buyer shall be treated for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) above as a VAT invoice provided by the person by whom the goods are deemed to be supplied in accordance with the said paragraph 7.

(3) Where a registered person provides a document to himself which purports to be a VAT invoice in respect of a supply of goods or services to him by another taxable person registered in the United Kingdom, that document may, with the approval of the Commissioners, be treated as the VAT invoice required to be provided by the supplier under paragraph (1)(a) above.

(4) Where the person who makes a supply to which regulation 93 relates gives an authenticated receipt containing the particulars required under regulation 14(1) to be specified in a VAT invoice in respect of that supply, that document shall be treated as the VAT invoice required to be provided under paragraph (1)(a) above on condition that no VAT invoice or similar document which was intended to be or could be construed as being a VAT invoice for the supply to which the receipt relates is issued.

(5) The documents specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) above shall be provided within 30 days of the time when the supply is treated as taking place under section 6 of the Act, or within such longer period as the Commissioners may allow in general or special directions.

Heavy reading. Maybe a phone call to your local vat office and just ask.

As BOEVAT is based on this concept ,they must have researched it.

There is a threshold of about £85k (2018/19), when over that the corporation in question, LLC or not has to register for VAT, so if its a car park company I would imagine they will be VAT reg'd, if not & over the 85 limit they will be taxed at 20% extra on thier turn over on top of the corporate tax paid.

As you have the name of the origonal company why not look on companies house web site & get thier last accounts? It will cost a small fee. Its just an idea. If you get the accounts you will see if VAT has been paid or not.

Take a look at sec 5.1 & 5.5
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/record-keeping-for-vat-notice-70021#vat-invoices-detailed-rules

tattyboggle wrote:

daveiron wrote:Here you are ; they are vat registered ,even if its zero rated they must
provide a vat invoice
VAT no 278651756
https://ukparkingsolution.co.uk/

The ambiguity around the issue of supplying a VAT invoice, from what I've researched is in the Value Added Tax Regs 1995.
(a)makes a taxable supply in the United Kingdom to a taxable person

Does this not mean both have to be registered for VAT, otherwise they have no legal obligation to provide one?

There's no ambiguity, that's exactly what it means.  This is used for example by some Internet providers to distinguish residential from business services, they will not provide a VAT invoice to a residential customer.  Aside from that you need to understand that penalties, compensation and damages are "outside the scope of VAT" which is different from zero rated.

See here for guidance on VAT vs parking penalty charges https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-supply-and-consideration/vatsc06140

So the only way a parking company is obliged to send a VAT invoice would be if the recipient is VAT registered, and you managed to argue that it's not a penalty, it's actually a fee to allow you to park.  That latter point isn't impossible, I've seen some stupid signage from private parking companies.

mmmm interesting? From the above link:

Excess charges for car parking

In determining whether excess charges are to be treated as further consideration for a taxable supply of services, it is as important to consider the contractual relationship between the parties as well as the statutory regime under which the services were supplied.

Exactly.  As an example a stupidly worded sign might be read as giving permission for you to abuse a disabled bay, so long as you pay the charge.  Rather than prohibiting use, with the charge as a penalty for non-compliance.

Another thought, if the signs say it's prohibited, there can't be any contractual agreement.  You can't agree to do something that is also said to be prohibited.  Parking companies should have sorted all this out years ago, however it may be worth mentioning that IPC are nowhere near on the ball compared to BPA.

Has the signage actually been checked?

(edit for stupid typos)

flyingfish wrote: if the signs say it's prohibited, there can't be any contractual agreement.  You can't agree to do something that is also said to be prohibited.

Agreed you cannot be 'licensed' to commit 'crime'.

May be of interest;

https://boevat.org.uk/confusion-over-vat/

I think they misunderstand the meaning of "outside the scope of VAT". The toaster in their example is not outside the scope. However they claim successes, so maybe they are able to persuade a court of their view.  I would be surprised as the actual law is not that difficult to understand.

As for an individual having to account for VAT, I can't even see what they could possibly mean.  Account for it in what sense?  Is someone going to come and demand how much VAT I've paid over the last X years, and demand to see invoices to back that figure up?  Entirely different for a VAT registered business where HMRC may want proof that they've received all the VAT their due (output VAT), and the company hasn't claimed back VAT their not entitled to (input).

I ran my company for over 30 years, Not once in all that time when i
asked for a vat receipt was any question raised,they were just issued
as a matter of course.
It raises the question why are parking companies in general & not just this
one refusing to supply them. It is after all an offer of conditional acceptance,
" You provide a vat receipt,i will pay" instead of simply providing a receipt and
getting paid ,they would rather go to all the extreems of debt collectors, bailiffs
etc. Why?

I know this is old ,I just went on bitschute and ceylon had just downloaded
this.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/CagwFuK5lplq/

It might be the position to argue what contractual conditions have to be met in order to give discharge? - Plaintiff prove.......

Many thanks for the links above and further reading.

flyingfish:
The signage has not been checked, its a fair distance to travel to go check it.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-supply-and-consideration/vatsc05840

Car Park Charges
If the contract under which car parking is supplied allows for an extension of the original terms, for which additional consideration is payable, the liability of this consideration follows that of the original supply. However, where a car park operator makes an offer of parking under clear terms and conditions, setting punitive fines for their breach, the fines constitute penalties for breaching the contract, rather than additional consideration for using the facilities. Consequently, they are outside the scope of VAT.

Am I correct in saying that even if you are VAT registered a PCN is outside the scope of VAT and therefore they have no obligation to provide one?

Further
Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
"5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

Therefore parking companies have no right to pass data on to debt collectors and attempt to charge additional fees?

Am I correct in concluding that Boevat process is flawed?

tattyboggle wrote:Am I correct in saying that even if you are VAT registered a PCN is outside the scope of VAT and therefore they have no obligation to provide one?

That's my understanding.

tattyboggle wrote:"5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

Therefore parking companies have no right to pass data on to debt collectors and attempt to charge additional fees?

So POFA gave companies the right to pursue the keeper of a vehicle rather than only being able to claim from the driver.  4(5) means is that they can't claim any more from the keeper than they would have claimed from the driver.  In your case I think you said they put a ticket on the windscreen (Notice to Driver), which presumably you ignored.  So in due course the could have sent a "Notice to Keeper" to the registered keeper, but 4(5) says that this can't claim a higher penalty that the preceding NTD.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't challenge every single figure in the event that they go to court. Parking companies are notorious for trying it on.  And while we're on the subject if you have all their paperwork then why not check they've complied with the POFA requirements?  If they haven't they can only pursue the driver, and hopefully nothing you've said to them confirmed who was driving at the time.

Am I correct in concluding that Boevat process is flawed?

In my opinion, yes.

Others disagree, but you're checking in some detail so can form your own opinion I'm sure.

Thanks flyingfish.
I didn't confirm being the driver but started the Boevat process as advised on this site. So sent them an offer to pay on the production of a proper formatted invoice after they sent a notice to keeper demanding £100.

So this leaves me with the issue of DBLC and the other DCAs all trying to get an extra £60 for admin.

My thoughts after research is they are committing fraud by attempting to get more money. They have no legal right to pursue any case until a judgement has been made and a further payment made to the courts to engage bailiffs.
Further 4(5) states they can't claim any more from the keeper than they would have claimed from the driver.

They're arguments that they can be involved, and as they are adhering to the International parking Community they can charge £60 seems like b*llocks as IPC are not the law and cannot enforce their opinion by claiming legislation is subordinate to their membership of IPC.

Having watched Dave Ward's video on Parking Charges? This is so much more! Consent of the Governed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOvAymtO6M&t=24s

In this video he shows the Seven Principles of Public Office, which he claims includes debt collectors. So DBLC, being high court enforcers, are bound by the above?
Can't find info on debt collectors bound by the Seven Principles of Public Office. Anyone help here?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

tattyboggle wrote:My thoughts after research is they are committing fraud by attempting to get more money. They have no legal right to pursue any case until a judgement has been made and a further payment made to the courts to engage bailiffs.

Without a court judgement they can't do any more than "ask" for money, and you could well be right that they aren't entitled to add fees at this stage.

thanks dave and every body best laugh iv,e had for along time CHEERS

1. The Seven Principles of Public Life

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.
1.1 Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
1.2 Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
1.3 Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
1.4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
1.5 Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
1.6 Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.
1.7 Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

Apologies if this post appears twice as the first didn’t seem to appear and a few changes. And a bit of a long, but hopefully educational read.

Thanks for all the support, links, guidance and collaboration throughout this post.
Education is power and this has certainly been educational.

In summery BOEVAT. (just my conclusion)

PNCs, other than a charge for overstay, are outside the scope of VAT.
Obligation to provide VAT invoice only to VAT registered taxpayer.
Companies have no obligation to issue VAT invoice for sums up to and including £100. Even if they do not include VAT on the invoice it is presumed to include VAT if it’s from a VAT registered company.

This information collated through HMRC and associated links.

Wet signatures

Bills of Exchange Act 1882
23 Signature essential to liability.
No person is liable as drawer, indorser, or acceptor of a bill who has not signed it as such: Provided that
(1)Where a person signs a bill in a trade or assumed name, he is liable thereon as if he had signed it in his own name:
(2)The signature of the name of a firm is equivalent to the signature by the person so signing of the names of all persons liable as partners in that firm.
Further
It is confirmed by article 25(1) of EU Regulation No 910/2014. This provides that “[a]n electronic signature shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form…” (and pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, s 3(1), will remain part of English law after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU). In addition, electronic signatures are admissible in evidence pursuant to section 7 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.

Ref: https://www.wilberforce.co.uk/when-is-a-signature-not-a-signature-the-law-commission-report-on-the-electronic-execution-of-documents/

The maximum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper.
Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
"5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

DCAs, pre trail have no right to intervene, they have no right to take legal action and no right to demand money above the amount stated on the notice to keeper as defined above.
Even the IPC code of practice states :
22.2 Operators cannot sell the Parking Charge to a third-party company.

Ignoring them, pre trial, has worked and I’m on my forth, they just pass it on to another.
From my experience the process is:
The operator must issue a pre action notice.
Take the matter to the small claims.
If the judgment goes against you, you’ll have around 14 days to pay, probably include court costs.
Only if you continue to refuse payment, the operator has to then pay additional fees to the small claims court to instruct court bailiffs to collect. They cannot under IPC rules sell the debt to a third party.
If it gets to pre action notice I might just send a lengthy complaint about intimidation and bullying and offer to pay the bloody £100 quoting Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. (5) and their involvement in debt collectors pre trial demands of breaching The Seven Principles of Public Life, or look for an alternative defence. I will not use BOEVAT, I think its too full of holes and not solid enough to risk additional court fees.

DCAs such as DCBL Ltd claim to be high court enforcers and therefore, I believe, clearly come under The Seven Principles of Public Life as they are appointed to the courts.

“This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services.”

This raises the question are they in breach of this on all counts?
(see assassin post above for list)

Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
"5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

Yet they are trying, pre trial and judgement against you, to obtain further funds, not for the operator but for themselves. Despite their claims they are acting in accordance to IPC, I would argue The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not subordinate to the IPC. Ignorance is no defence!
In fact the IPC states
3
3.1 The Code is designed to compliment the laws, which apply to the parking industry. It is member’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to all relevant legal provisions.

Not bloody overrule it!

Ref: https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/documents/Code%20of%20Practice%20v7.pdf

Under English law, misconduct in public office is a criminal offence at common law which dates back to the 13th century.[2][3]
The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is confined to those who are public office holders, and is committed when the office holder acts (or neglects to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.[4]
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence[2] say that the elements of the offence are when:
1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform one's duty and/or wilfully misconducts oneself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.[5]
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
The similarly-named misfeasance in public office is a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI case, it was held that this had three essential elements:[6]
1. The defendant must be a public officer
2. The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer
3. The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers
"Misconduct in public office" is often but inaccurately rendered as "misconduct in a public office", which has a different meaning.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

Tort: regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Importantly, It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong[1] (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
Tort law involves claims in an action seeking to obtain a private civil remedy, typically money damages. Tort claims may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. A wrongful act, such as an assault and battery, may result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which also provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract; but whereas the contractual obligation is one agreed to by the parties, obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.[citation needed]In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.[note 1][note 2]

Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealthcountries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power.[1] The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote (Ashby v White).[2] The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.
Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff.
In theory, misfeasance is distinct from nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is a failure to act that results in harm to another party. Misfeasance, by contrast, is some affirmative act that, though legal, causes harm. In practice, the distinction is confusing and uninstructive. Courts often have difficulty determining whether harm resulted from a failure to act or from an act that was improperly performed.

I hope this has been useful in drawing your own conclusions and clarifying some points raised.

wow a lot of research & I hope its correct. Parking tickets I have had in the past have all been council related & so in theory are IMO easier to get rid. Have not had come back on any yet for me. Have used BOEVAT in my correspondences no probs, but this now throws a whole new light on things for me so will have to research further.

ps

Took a little legal advice from a barrister.
" If they don't have a CCJ and this is private land then they cannot use a baiiffs at all.
To enforce this they will need a CCJ.
They can get debt collectors to write and call but no bailiff can be despatched to enforce this.

It is no different from any other civil claim.
They need a CCJ to enforce.
Local council fines are quite different."

what about demanding a VATed invoice as part of your counter claim? As in - I will pay.... to you if you provide me with a VATed invoice etc?

just an idea?

LionsShare wrote:what about demanding a VATed invoice as part of your counter claim? As in - I will pay.... to you if you provide me with a VATed invoice etc?

just an idea?

That is the basis of BOEVAT and how it all started. They have already been offered that as settlement which they refused.

If requested a VAT certificate must be issued, irrespective of whether the company is VAT registered, if not VAT registered it should show the rate of VAT as NIL.