Can Napier Do This?

duffs54

I don't know how to find that out?

sadly didn't get over there today

trisontana

duffs54 wrote: »

I don't know how to find that out?

sadly didn't get over there today

HO87 seems to have some knowledge of the de Savary network of companies. Perhaps he might be able to tell us.

duffs54

Marktheshark, just sent an adapted letter you posted off to Beales, thank you

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

HO87 seems to have some knowledge of the de Savary network of companies. Perhaps he might be able to tell us.

Indeed. As per my post #63 above the landowner at North Road car park is Charter House Investments LLP

There are three directors of Charter House Investments LLP: Carnegie Asset Management and Nicholas and James de Savary. With some exceptions this seems to be pretty much the pattern for their car parks. The land is acquired by one or other of the de Savary's suite of companies and then managed by Napier. Only in one case am I aware that land was acquired by Napier direct. The funding for the purchases is often forthcoming from other de Savary sources (e.g. Car Park Finance LLP) and secured by a charge against the land.

I've also realised there are a couple of omissions from the list I posted at #66. They are:

Kings Lynn - Station car park, off Blackfiars Road (originally thought to have been leased but evidence now suggests that it too was purchased)
Stevenage - Letchmore Road (is this operational?)

Much as might be expected, the suite of companies is expanded to accommodate new and intended acquisitions - one company one car park - and the company name often suggests the area of interest. Standby then! A relatively recent appearance in the de Savary stable is Devon & Cornwall Car Parks Ltd.

trisontana

So Napier as such cannot ban anyone from that car park as they don't own the land. It would be up to Charter House Ltd. to do that. Doesn't this also mean Napier didn't suffer any "loss", so what are they bleating about?

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

So Napier as such cannot ban anyone from that car park as they don't own the land. It would be up to Charter House Ltd. to do that. Doesn't this also mean Napier didn't suffer any "loss", so what are they bleating about?

It may be that Napier cannot but Messrs de Savary certainly can. Who knows, it is entirely possible that Napier has been sufficiently empowered by Charter House to exclude individuals at their discretion?

As for any loss that is the $64,000 question. Including the cost of POPLA appeals and a sometime barrister's bill for £2,000 is hardly "ascertained and liquidated" damages in respect of alleged individual incidents.

trisontana

I happened to be in Peterborough toad and took a very quick look ate the signage. One thing that struck was the statement "Failure to adhere to these terms will attract a parking charge"(or whatever Napier call their fake fines) without actually specifying the amount of that charge. Also, unless I missed it, I couldn't see any reference to who was issuing this fake fine.

duffs54

I took a picture of the sign today, and it has changed and moved, it was on a higher board in small writing with no chance of reading it on the way in, but it is now has bigger writing and eye level with less writing.

It clearly says it is managed by them.

So the only money they spent was on the Debt Company letter, and as it didn't go to POPLA as they canx it before that stage, there is no cost there. Plus getting details from DVLA.

Don't think that amounts to much.money.

Got a reply from BPA about the banning order, can't help and to seek legal advice and if Napier don't own the land contact the land registry etc. to find out who does.

hoohoo

I think everyone is barking up the wrong tree. The significant loss is not money, but loss of face, loss of reputation and loss of credibility. Having shown they have no idea of POFA timescales, and been caught out saying a letter did not arrive when free proof of postage was obtained, their ability to professionally manage a car park must be called into question.

No doubt they will still get plenty of business from the De Savary network, but who else would get them to manage their car park?

In my mind the OP is well deserved of a ban. Who knows what other sharp practices he would expose, and what fools he would make of them if he was allowed to visit again.

Napier should go the whole hog and try and get a 1km exclusion zone from all their car parks, preferably from all motorists who have ever read this forum or have internet access.

duffs54

So I now have a reply from the shop about my ban:
We have put our viewpoint to Napier but unfortunately we are not in a position of influence with them. They own the car park outright and can consequently operate the car park in whichever way they see fit. Beales have no legal rights over the car park at all. I appreciate your frustration in this matter but would stress that the legal process that Napier have followed with yourself is unknown to us and not of our making. We do hope to have a meeting with Napier in the near future about our customers concerns and will again raise your case.

Your thoughts please