Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking ticket refunds ... councils consulting lawyers across the country ...
FightBack Forums > Discussion > News / Press Articles
ftc001
http://neilherron.blogspot.com/

<H3 class="post-title entry-title">Parking ticket refunds ... councils consulting lawyers across the country ... </H3>Sources within councils reveal that many councils are so concerned about claims for refunds that they are taking independent legal advice, especially ones whose officers have been flagrantly disregarding signing law and continuing to enforce restrictions known to be unlawful. However, the advice coming back is not what they want to hear and Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners is being cited by counsel to councils as the binding authority which will force many of them to refund £millions.

The credit card surcharge problem revealed in our Camden and London borough expose is now becoming a Sword of Damocles for some councils and officers outside of London. Every council has immediately withdrawn the surcharge, apart from one, when brought to their attention, so misconduct in public office charges may simply be reserved for the ones who think that they are above the law. However, council officers who have been condoning enforcing restrictions known to be unlawful had better start checking their own household insurance policies because there will be no council legal and financial indemnity should it be shown that they were the 'controlling minds' behind illegal enforcement. There are many who do not want to be standing next to their council's 'Captain Smith' and are collecting their own lifebelts. There is more than one iceberg on the horizon ...

Clarification of one of the points below. PATAS adjudicators have ruled that the PCN is unlawful regardless of whether payment was made by credit card.
Therefore, ALL paid PCNs detailed below are recoverable andthe council has no legal right to the monies it retains. For more information emailenquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk



4,700 could get parking rebates because surcharges broke the rules
Halifax Courier



11th September 2009
By Michael Peel

AROUND 4,700 motorists who paid parking fines using credit cards could be entitled to a rebate.
They account for 10 per cent of the 47,000 drivers fined since 2006. The Courier reported last month how the 2.6 per cent surcharge on credit card payments contravenes Department of Transport guidelines and was recently scrapped.


Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the council took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November 2006, it has raised £1,278,000 in fines.That follows the issuing of 47,000 parking contravention notices.

The total income from credit cards during that period was £123,400 of which £3,200 came from the handling fee.

Car parking campaigner Neil Herron, a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, has threatened to take another council to the High Court over the issue and has also written to the council's chief executive Owen Williams to complain.

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator Michael Greenslade ruled earlier this year that parking tickets issued by Camden Council were invalid if they included a credit card surcharge. According to a Calderdale spokesman, the council had always imposed the charge. It was removed it after the council received the results of a traffic penalty tribunal, held in Bristol.

Figures show that total income from parking fines is falling from £551,752 in 2007/8 to £428,225 last year.

During the first five months of this year, the council received £153,000.


Woolwich Equitable Building Society -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) [1993] AC 701993
HL
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Slynn of Hadley; Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle dissentingTaxes ManagementCasemap
1 Cites
1 Citers
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. The Society sought to challenge the decision by judicial review. Held: At common law taxes exacted ultra vires were recoverable as of right, without the need to invoke a mistake of law by the payer. "The justice underlying Woolwich's submission is, I consider, plain to see. Take the present case. The revenue has made an unlawful demand for tax. The taxpayer is convinced that the demand is unlawful, and has to decide what to do. It is faced with the revenue, armed with the coercive power of the state, including what is in practice a power to charge interest which is penal in its effect. In addition, being a reputable society which alone among many building societies is challenging the lawfulness of the demand, it understandably fears damage to its reputation if it does not pay. So it decides to pay first, asserting that it will challenge the lawfulness of the demand in litigation. Now, Woolwich having won that litigation, the revenue asserts that it was never under any obligation to repay the money, and that it in fact repaid it only as a matter of grace. There being no applicable statute to regulate the position, the revenue has to maintain this position at common law. Stated in this stark form, the revenue's position appears to me, as a matter of common justice, to be unsustainable; and the injustice is rendered worse by the fact that it involves, as Nolan J. pointed out [1989] 1 W.L.R. 137, 140, the revenue having the benefit of a massive interest-free loan as the fruit of its unlawful action. I turn then from the particular to the general. Take any tax or duty paid by the citizen pursuant to an unlawful demand. Common justice seems to require that tax be repaid, unless special circumstances or some principle of policy require otherwise; prima facie, the taxpayer should be entitled to repayment as of right." and "the retention by the state of taxes unlawfully exacted is particularly obnoxious, because it is one of the most fundamental principles of our law – enshrined in a famous constitutional document, the Bill of Rights 1688 – that taxes should not be levied without the authority of Parliament; and full effect can only be given to that principle if the return of taxes exacted under an unlawful demand can be enforced as a matter of right. The second is that, when the revenue makes a demand for tax, that demand is implicitly backed by the coercive powers of the state and may well entail (as in the present case) unpleasant economic and social consequences if the taxpayer does not pay. In any event, it seems strange to penalise the good citizen, whose natural instinct is to trust the revenue and pay taxes when they are demanded of him."Taxes Management Act 1970 33
roythebus
Interesting that their worships quote this: "enshrined in a famous constitutional document, the Bill of Rights 1688".
ftc001
Indeed happy.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.