Private residential underground parking charge notice

assassin wrote: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.

Hi to you all, i don't post frequently as i have not read enough yet.

But i thought i could add to this post in respect of councils being far more difficult to defeat than private entities, but the VAT subject shut my council down, although i think that they initially assumed i had made a mistake in asking for a full VAT invoice, rather than assuming i knew what i was doing.

They they gave me the benefit and reset the clock so to speak on my offence of entering a bus lane.

(You cant avoid it once you have traveled into a certain place, the only way out is to take the bus lane or drive into oncoming traffic down a one way street, cracking pension scheme eh!

MY first letter (after PCN) was a request for a full VAT invoice and my second was do not contact me again unless it accompanied by a full VAT invoice, otherwise you will be encouraging my to commit VAT fraud,
Never heard from since, 6.5 years ago.

Thanks to Dennis Healy and the IMF ALL goods and service are subject (few minor exemptions ex) to VAT, in their claim it is for a service. So that a massive VAT fraud on top.

respect to all

The saga continues!
Letter from dcblegal now wanting 160 bucks.
They have issued a letter headed Letter of Claim, stating it is a formal letter of of claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
Saying have to pay them 160 buck or complete a reply form and financial statement.
They also mention Civil procedures Rules 1998 and the Court's power to impose sanctions if there is a failure to pay or even respond.

Any thoughts on this latest development.......its not going away thats for sure!

Without going through the whole thread,may i suggest if at no point
you have you refused to pay,you could consider a Notice of Conditional
Acceptance ( Do not use our ones for loans cc etc) if all you have been asking
for from the start is a VAT invoice. Base it around the facts that at no point
have you refused to pay and you have offered remedy which they have ignored.

Additional good info from the Observation Deck on youtube

Thanks daveiron

Question, is this latest letter not just another letter no different from others?
Is it important to actually reply to it?

I have just managed to get a hold of the lease/tenancy agreement and there is absolutely nothing in there mentioning residents or visitors having to display a permit. Having looked at ParkingCowboys and money saving expert they mention in their blogs that if the lease does not stipulate residents must display a permit then the parking charge notice is unenforceable. They suggest many cases have been thrown out due to this.
I was wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of these actual cases?

The lease states, and this is the only mention of parking anywhere in the lease,
1.31 Motor Vehicles - Only to park motor vehicles in the allocated spaces (if any) and not to park more than the permitted number of motor vehicles.
Any vehicles parked in parking space for the property must be taxed, insured and of road worthy condition.

Actually managed to find a couple of cases so I'll include them here.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/link-parking-lose-in-wrexham-flat-owner_2.html

Data Protection
All this means that residential parking is quite a minefield for everyone, and parking companies are quite likely to get this wrong. If a parking company gets your personal information from the DVLA for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

Yes its a letter before claim ,you need to respond.
I would incorporate in your NoCA, questions relating to the additional
info you now hold regarding lease/tenants agreement.
Take a look at our NoCA and lay out yours in numbered questions to
which you inform them you require answers to.
Feel free to post a draft here so we can add suggestions if required.
It may also be eaiser to email parking cowboys etc to ask for the cases
they mention.

Posts just overlapped, thats great you now have case law .
personally i would now feel very confidant,

Thanks daveiron, I've tried searching with no success, where might I find the NoCA template?

Here is one . Do not use these questions, they do not apply.
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4987-notice-of-conditional-acceptance-for-debt-purchasers-only
Use the general layout ie, numbered relevant questions ,
Who is taking liability for the answers ,who is claiming firsy hand knowledge.
Also as i stated before find the relevent Observation Deck video.

Did a bit of further research online and the response just needs to include the summery of the basis of the claim and a response.

My first draft.

Dear Sir/Madam

Your basis of claim.

The vehicle with registration number ---------- was parked on private land managed by your client. The signs displayed on the land set out the Terms of parking (i.e. “the Contract”). The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and as such the Contract was accepted and a PCN was issued. You are liable as the Keeper or Driver.
You are claiming £160 to be paid with regard to the PCN, which includes debt recovery costs.

Response.

An initial offer to settle was unequivocally rejected by your client. That offer was on the simple condition, and offering a quick resolution without the need to involve court resources and time, of your client issuing a VAT invoice for the sum of £100. That sum is in accordance with 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)."

The rejected offer was also in respect of Civil Procedures Rules 1998 overriding objectives.
(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable—
(b)saving expense;
(c)dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate—
(i)to the amount of money involved;
(ii)to the importance of the case;
(iii)to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv)to the financial position of each party;
(d)ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(e)allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

Your claim is rebutted in substance for the following reasons:

On subsequent legal advice I conclude there is no case to answer and reject your basis of claim on the grounds that the lease/tenancy agreement made no mention of any requirement to display parking permits.
The only reference to parking in the lease agreement states:

1.31 Motor Vehicles - Only to park motor vehicles in the allocated spaces (if any) and not to park more than the permitted number of motor vehicles.
Any vehicles parked in parking space for the property must be taxed, insured and of road worthy condition.

Further, third party parking companies have no right to overrule lease/tenancy agreements. This is confirmed in a number of case studies including cases of appeal:

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In the event your client pursues the matter through the courts I advise that a counter claim will be issued for breach of data protection. If a parking company obtains personal information from the DVLA for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

Looks good to me. Just check there is no tenant agreement to display
a permit.

I would rebut their claims in substance, case law helps you rebut; if you do not rebut then their claims stand as law and truth becomes judgement, so include the rebuttal somewhere.

If it was unsigned you can add the following which is a maxim of law which even Judges cannot rule against:

Commercial Law Maxim 4

Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit

This must be true, correct, and complete. By failing to sign this document it is not complete and invalid as no person is accepting liability for this claim, and you have failed to provide full accounting.

Update

Despite the case studies:
In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Further cases stating that the Bevis case does not apply to residential parking, they have responded saying they intend to go to court!

tattyboggle wrote:Further cases stating that the Bevis case does not apply to residential parking, they have responded saying they intend to go to court!

No it does not.  It might be worth you reading Beavis and understanding it, in preparation to spelling out why it is not relevant.  In reality Beavis only dealt with one point, whether a parking company can charge an arbitrary figure, and call it a "penalty". Nothing about whether they have a claim in the first instance, only the value.

It was a big win for the parking industry as they used to lose cases when the defendant pressed for justification of the figure claimed, which they had to try to explain away as liquidated damages, or a pre-estimate of loss.  However they've taken to treating it as the silver bullet, thinking all they need to do is say "Beavis - we win".

flyingfish wrote:

tattyboggle wrote:Further cases stating that the Bevis case does not apply to residential parking, they have responded saying they intend to go to court!

No it does not.  It might be worth you reading Beavis and understanding it, in preparation to spelling out why it is not relevant.  In reality Beavis only dealt with one point, whether a parking company can charge an arbitrary figure, and call it a "penalty". Nothing about whether they have a claim in the first instance, only the value.

It was a big win for the parking industry as they used to lose cases when the defendant pressed for justification of the figure claimed, which they had to try to explain away as liquidated damages, or a pre-estimate of loss.  However they've taken to treating it as the silver bullet, thinking all they need to do is say "Beavis - we win".

In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking,

27 I am satisfied that the decision of the district judge was wrong.
28 In the circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with arguments about the Unfair Contract Terms, and the factual circumstances are quite different from those in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] supra. Inter alia, in that case the agreed motorist was not exercising a right ancillary to a right of way, and clearly was parking.
29 The appeal will therefore be allowed.

Question to the readers of this.
Has anyone tried a crowd funding campaign to cover legal costs to fight the parking mobsters?
Anyone know of a uk legal firm open to pro bono cases?

Despite all the case studies looks like they are determined to proceed to court action.

Update, so the Boevat approach didn't work, case studies hasn't put them off, had a notice from the court, submitted a defence.

tattyboggle wrote:Update, so the Boevat approach didn't work

No surprise there. in this very thread we went through the actual VAT legislation and everyone agreed the argument had no legs. Maybe I should say everyone who actually read the legislation. I don't know why after dismissing that argument it was suddenly back on the table with nothing to back it up.