Author Topic: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over from pepipoo)  (Read 359 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
I wonder whether any 'extracurricular' complaints to HMRC et. al. might be best saved until after the claim has been dealt with.

Trying not to stray too far OT.

There are many other likely VAT related issues than the point highlighted by b789. If the contract purports to include agreement by the client to agree a £70 charge that could be a taxable supply to the client. (In effect I agree £100 within 28 days, £170 thereafter).

In any event as soon as a court claim is either DNC'd or lost there are other issues since all those purported taxable supplies didn't happen but have been included on returns. In an industry that is somewhat based around court claims that is a problem. Getting HMRC interested won't be easy, especially from any party not directly involved
Agree Agree x 1 View List

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Itís a valid question which is likely sowing worry amongst the scamming debt collectors. It takes about 3-4 minutes to report the suspicion and anyone can report it but it has more weight if you can evidence a lack of response to the question.

The suspected fraud is in the £millions and besides the loss of revenue, it is the PPC victims who are funding the DRAs.

https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
The other significant VAT issue is the state of the original charge.

If the alleged contract is such that the original charge is liquidated damages then it's not a taxable supply in the first place.

If, however, it is constructed as some expensive form of premium parking service it is a taxable supply.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
Whilst this discussion around VAT is all very interesting, unless the OP has ambitions to be the next Barry Beavis I think we should focus on helping with his defence for now.

Once he has dealt with the underlying charge (and any alleged liability he might have for it), he can of course pursue any avenues with HMRC essentially risk-free, if he chooses to.

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
This has everything to do with the original issue of the PCN. There is a valid question about the amount claimed. The question is asked in the response to the LBC and has to be answered as per the PAP.

We already know that the DRAs fail to answer the question. So, if/when a claim is filed, this failure to fully answer the question about the VAT on the fake added £70 becomes very relevant and is highlighted in the defence.

If it is in the defence, it is on the record and failure to address the defence point adds to the unreasonable behaviour of the claimant and their agent. It also adds incentive for them to discontinue.

This is nothing to do with saving a point for any possible future appeal. It is just one additional step in the process that is being advocated over on the MSE parking forum. With over 12m DVLA lookups from the PPCs last year, you only have to do some simple back of an envelope maths to realise how much these parasites could be avoiding in VAT.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Karma: +19/-0
    • View Profile
I don't dispute that, I'm just keen to ensure that it doesn't take over the thread, to the detriment of other defence points that, pragmatically, might have a greater probability of success.

Many judges, especially at County Court level, are keen for an easy life. Ensuring at least one of the defence points allows them to find in the defendant's favour without "rocking the boat", is sensible.

Tl;Dr - by all means include it, but let's ensure it's as part of a fully fledged defence

BertieW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi,

Thank you for the advice and the points raised around VAT in the last few posts, I will be happy to of-course raise them accordingly with the kind assistance of the members here, once as DWMB2 notes, the main matter has be resolved.

To  that effect, I have had responses both from CPM and Gladstones. CPM have responded as thus:
Quote
We can confirm your data rectification was received on 14th August 2023 and updated on our systems on 13th October 2023. I can also confirm our debt recovery suppliers were updated of the new address for service on 13th October 2024. Although this was updated by themselves, it appears when the PCN debt was transferred to our legal suppliers, the incorrect address for service was provided. I can confirm our legal suppliers have now been updated with the correct address for service and all further correspondence will be forwarded to this address.

As a gesture of goodwill, we have placed your file on hold for 45 days. If payment is not made in full within this timeframe our legal suppliers are instructed to recover the full debt value.

 
(emphasis added).

Gladstones on their part have refused to remove the previous address details, rationalising their decision as follows:


Quote
Unfortunately, we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data, which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf of our client UK Car Park Management Limited for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge(s), number(s) XXXXXXXXXXXX...We are unable to remove your previous address as it was referred by our Client upon our instruction and now forms an integral part of our file.

I guess what GS are saying make sense, unless I am told otherwise by members here. However, would there be / is it necessary or beneficial to further take up CPM on their error of providing the incorrect address?

Thanks