DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18731--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: BertieW
Date: March 31, 2024, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> If they're sending the post to your old address, that is
because you didn't actually tell them to erase your old address.
You now need to email the DPO at both CPM and Gladstone's
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi,
Thanks for the information both.
I did actually include the CPM DPO when I notified them
initially of my move abroad and included the UK forwarding
address in that email. At that time, I wasn't aware who they
would solicit for their claim so I couldn't have notified
Gladstones about it.
Granted that I didn't headline the email with the suggested:This
is a data rectification notice ; or included the instructions to
erase my old address, but I thought it was pretty clear in the
message that the old address would not be in use anymore and all
correspondence should be to the new address.
I did not receive any acknowledgement reply from the DPO inbox
(automated or otherwise).
Email here dated 15/08/23, showing the DPO inbox in email
recipients:
HTML https://ibb.co/7vJMd2m
Does the above change anything regarding liability under GDPR?
They clearly didn't comply as my old address was passed on to
Gladstones. Should I still notify the DPO at Gladstones or the
course of action should be different now?
#Post#: 18746--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: b789
Date: March 31, 2024, 10:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Every time you change address for the next 6 years, you will
need to instruct them to erase your old address. The word
“erase” is highlighted for a reason.
However, you should still send a new data rectification notice
to both CPM and their solicitors. As they didn’t follow your
original instructions, you should initiate a complaint with CPM
and ask why they didn’t follow your instructions and why they
have passed on erroneous data to Gladstone. Depending on their
response, you should also lodge a complaint with the ICO.
#Post#: 18755--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: BertieW
Date: April 1, 2024, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - done on both counts: 1) emailed and complained to CPM
and Gladstones regarding data
2) responded to the PAP on Gladstones website using the dispute
reasons kindly provided.
Will keep you posted.
#Post#: 18763--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 1, 2024, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is just a response to the LBC and asking them to submit an
LBC that fully complies with the PAP. They may decide not to
comply and just issue a claim anyway.
If they do ignore the request for a fully compliant LBC then you
will be able to add those breaches of PAP to your defence as a
preliminary matter. For now we wait and see what they come back
with.
The question about whether the added £70 DRA fee is important as
I doubt they will fully answer the question. If so, you can then
lodge a report of suspected VAT fraud to HMRC.
You could state that the report is about VAT concerns involving
the conduct of the legal and Debt Recovery firms operating as
parasites clinging limpet-like to the 'rogue' private parking
industry.
A report specifically concerning Gladstone’s Solicitors will be
about their failure to confirm whether consumers are being
unlawfully hit with the VAT element of their added 'fees'.
It is not about parking charges (these cannot exceed £100). It
is all about the added £70 admin/DRA costs that the DLUHC called
'extorting money from motorists'.
These third party debt collectors include BW Legal, DCB Ltd,
DCB Legal, Gladstones Solicitors, Empira, TNC, CIS, Trace Debt
Recovery, ZZPS, Debt Recovery Plus, QDR solicitors, CST Law,
Elms Legal and others who are listed as members of the BPA
and/or IPC Approved Operator or approved debt firms.
Because the concern is that they steadfastly refuse to answer
questions about the VAT on their DRA fee, it is now widely
suspected that some or all of the private parking industry
specialist Debt Recovery firms (including legal firms) may be
operating as follows.
Either:
(a) not paying HMRC the VAT element on the £60 or £70 per PCN
'admin fees' that they charge for 'debt recovery'. This amounts
to £multi-millions p.a. due to parking cases now exceeding 12m
DVLA look-ups per year. Within weeks, £70 per PCN is added and
aggressively demanded. 90% of those cases that result in court
claims include multiple £70 'fees' that the parking operator
clients have never paid and appear to be unjust enrichment of
the DRAs;
or
(b) including VAT within the fixed £70 'fee' which they describe
as "our costs". This has the object or effect of making the
consumer pay the VAT, which HMRC has already stated is unlawful
in cases of enforcement or debt recovery fees.
The service supplied by a debt collection agency is a single
composite supply, the core of which is debt collection, which is
specifically excluded from the finance exemption, and is thus
taxable:
HTML https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-finance-manual/vatfin3255
You should complain and given Gladstone’s Solicitors every
chance to clarify what they are doing in terms of VAT on what
they call "our costs" but they will likely swerve the
questions.
This is long overdue HMRC investigation.
#Post#: 18764--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 1, 2024, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> This is long overdue HMRC investigation.
--- End Quote ---
But potentially not one BertieW wants to spearhead, at least
until he's dealt with the claim at hand. I wonder whether any
'extracurricular' complaints to HMRC et. al. might be best saved
until after the claim has been dealt with.
#Post#: 18845--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: slapdash
Date: April 2, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
> I wonder whether any 'extracurricular' complaints to HMRC et.
al. might be best saved until after the claim has been dealt
with.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 18848--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2024, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s 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.
HTML https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud
#Post#: 18890--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: slapdash
Date: April 3, 2024, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 18891--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 3, 2024, 3:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 18906--------------------------------------------------
Re: CPM parking on double yellow in private land (carried over
from pepipoo)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 3, 2024, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page