Here is Mr Whitehouse's response to this earlier blog entry.
We can categorically deny that we reimburse the proprietor, this is a misinterpretation of the facts, naivety and a loop hole once exploited and now closed.
Collecting revenue from offenders and repaying the proprietor with payment would constitute a 'Service' and attract Vat on fees. We should remind you that Vat is accountable only on goods and service and not on damages that arrive from trespass on land. In any case collecting damages for the proprietor is our opinion a 'kick back' which is totally unethical. Unfortunately I do agree that there are too many companies who don't see it that way and may place them selves and the proprietors in deep and precarious waters with HMRC coming to the rescue. May I reassure everyone that every client of ours is charged £30 per sign per year plus vat and we are paid to deter not to chastise! Hence the would be offender causes our company to be in breach of our contract and in doing-so WE legally seek and spend all of the damages.
In regards to that particular case; We had not prepared for such a defence and expected arbitration to be a little more astute. Nevertheless may I re-assure our clients (proprietors) that we have since proven and justified that charging a proprietor for the deterrent value of the warning signs is liquidated damages and the pre-determined fee of £100 is a term and condition of parking that a motorist accepts by staying put. “If you don't agree with the fee... then move”
WHEELS BACK ON