"Park Watch" are NOT Park watch LTD.

pappa_golf

DJMC wrote: »

08798058 = Park Watch Ltd

the FOI above is rubbish , every company has a company number , in this case the company that got the info from the DVLA was 08047971 who have then handed the info to a non ATA member

the BPA may spout all day about "trading as" , but this is clearly a case of parkwatch having wardens on site , letting defence systems get data , then handing data over to parkwatch

only in defence systems "minds" are they trying to pass off "trading as" , a company can trade as anything they want , but NOT the name of a company that already exists

https://www.gov.uk/choose-company-name


What you can and can’t use
Your name can’t be exactly the same as another registered company’s name -

a lot more info is available regarding this , and maybe companies house could give you the correct definition.

I have spoken to a very good accountant , he agrees with me and the above , put simply , they cannot "trade as" (registered company), they can foward details on , (in non parking cases by simply complying with ICO) , and all dealings inc tax and vat would be down to new company, but in the case of parking , no ATA company can pass data to a non ATA "PARKING" company to pursue action

Mrcirrus

I am in court tomorrow to fight a case against these companies. The contract I entered into via the signage for parking was annotated defence systems ltd. However the licence agreement to operate the car park and the Notice to Keeper was sent by Parkwatch. I will argue that I had no contract with Parkwatch and will produce company house documents that show two separately registered companies. I will post the judges comments tomorrow assuming I am still a free man !!!

pappa_golf

Mrcirrus wrote: »

I am in court tomorrow to fight a case against these companies. The contract I entered into via the signage for parking was annotated defence systems ltd. However the licence agreement to operate the car park and the Notice to Keeper was sent by Parkwatch. I will argue that I had no contract with Parkwatch and will produce company house documents that show two separately registered companies. I will post the judges comments tomorrow assuming I am still a free man !!!

Wakefield C5Gxxxxx Defence Systems Park Watch Vacated

this one?

Mrcirrus

No that's not me, my case is Birmingham in a few days. Will post back with the outcome don't wish to elaborate until after the case.

DJMC

Mrcirrus wrote: »

I am in court tomorrow to fight a case against these companies... I will post the judges comments tomorrow assuming I am still a free man !!!

Mrcirrus wrote: »

No that's not me, my case is Birmingham in a few days. Will post back with the outcome don't wish to elaborate until after the case.

I'm afraid I have to doubt whether you are trolling us due to these posts being inconsistent as to the court date and your being a newbie. To what end I'm not sure?

If your case IS genuine, could you please insert a copy of the court hearing paperwork showing the date of the hearing so that we can be sure whatever else you have to say is not fabricated?

Many thanks.

PS. See apology in post #36 below>>>

Castle

DJMC wrote: »

I'm afraid I have to doubt whether you are trolling us due to these posts being inconsistent as to the court date and your being a newbie. To what end I'm not sure?

If your case IS genuine, could you please insert a copy of the court hearing paperwork showing the date of the hearing so that we can be sure whatever else you have to say is not fabricated?

Many thanks.

I think this is the upcoming case:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107155

HO87

@pappa golf

Despite your prognostications on the subject (that Defence Systems Ltd is in an ATA whilst Park Watch Ltd is not) this whole situation is likely to turn on the approach of the BPA with regard to "group membership".

@pappa golf & DJMC

Having had a little experience in this area with a number of companies in the past I'd be prepared to wager a pound to a pinch that, if pressed, the BPA will confirm that Park Watch Ltd is indeed a member. It has become clear over the years that the legal distinction that is clear to the rest of us becomes somewhat fuzzy in the leafy streets of Haywards Heath. This even extended to a company that simply never existed being listed as a member of the AOS for over a year after the BPA were told of the issue. Then there was the company that had been dissolved months before remaining a member after it had been struck off the register. I'm therefore slightly cautious about the clarity of the matter of at least the clarity with which it will be viewed elsewhere.

And we have been around the apparent use/misuse/abuse of "trading as" more times than I care to think about in just the last 18 months whether that be with One Parking, CPMS or any other PPC.

@ pappa golf

Contrary to your assertions above Park Watch Ltd is indeed wholly owned by Defence Systems Ltd the latter being the only shareholder listed on incorporation in 2013 and remained so in the latest return filed at CoHo. On that basis it would be entirely proper to describe them as a subsidiary. This may of course have some bearing on their status viz. the data application.

DJMC

One other nuance to this case is that my wife is dead against "listening to those people on the internet" and prefers my son to pay the £60, so I have a double fight here. She's why I phoned our home insurance legal assistance people.

I'm considering whether to suggest my son pays the £60 and then appeals to have the ticket withdrawn and the £60 refunded. Putting away your horror at such a suggestion for one moment, is this possible or does payment confirm "guilt"? He would notify Park Watch Ltd that the money is being paid subject to appeal.

This would give my wife the satisfaction of having the charge paid, give me less earache, let my son get on with his job rather than worry about this matter, and let me carry on fighting the charge.

By the way, I complained to the legal protection people and spoke to a "manager" she too didn't understand the two entity thing and gave me an example of her name being double barrelled and so she could choose to call herself Mrs Smith or Mrs Jones but she was still the same person. I told her she is one legal entity, a person, but these two firms are two legal entities.
She motored on, trying to protect her colleague's advice until I tired of her nonsense and hung up.
A while later a senior adviser phoned me back. He has a law degree.
He was more helpful, understanding all, but said to fight it would cost more than £60 in time and effort. Whilst my wife and son agree with this, and I do too, my principles don't allow just anyone to come knocking on "my" door for money claiming my son didn't do something correctly (i.e. park) when they cannot put their case correctly either.

It was the same with NPower (see my other thread). If the little man doesn't take a a stand against these people they'll walk all over those less able to fight them. Hate that.

HO87

If the PCN is paid there is absolutely no redress though any of the appeals channels. The only recourse you will have will be to pursue matters through the small claims court

Umkomaas

I'm considering whether to suggest my son pays the £60 and then appeals to have the ticket withdrawn and the £60 refunded. Putting away your horror at such a suggestion for one moment, is this possible or does payment confirm "guilt"? He would notify Park Watch Ltd that the money is being paid subject to appeal.

So you win your appeal? How do you propose getting your £60 back?