The claimant challenged a finding that VAT was chargeable on parking penalty payments as a supply of goods or services.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.’
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 186, [2013] WLR(D) 105
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Hallett, Lewison, Treacy LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 28 July 2020; Ref: scu.471669 br>
The post Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 13 Mar 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.