"Park Watch" are NOT Park watch LTD.

DJMC

HO87 wrote: »

@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.

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.

From what I've read here, and the initial response from BPA, I'd agree they may well confirm Park Watch Ltd to be a member.

Park Watch Ltd may also be described as a subsidiary, but in court I would argue that they are two separate legal entities. My son's contract according to the car park signage is with Defence Systems Ltd. The parking charge notice is with Park Watch ltd. The latter is a third party and has no right to demand money relating to a contract between the former and my son.

However, I am reminded of a case I defended in the county court as a director. A leaflet distributor had issued a claim for an unpaid invoice. We had evidence that the leaflets had been dumped and burned in a public place. The claimant issued proceedings in the name of one of the other directors, not the limited company itself with which the contract had been made.
My first statement to the judge was that the case should be thrown out as it had been improperly brought against the wrong alleged debtor.
The judge simply brushed this aside, saying it was a minor argument.
That was in Birmingham too! But was maybe ten years ago so let's hope he's moved on.

I successfully wound up another company which owed me £118,000, appearing in court (Birmingham again) when the company didn't show.
They later put in an application to have the order set aside but rather than just hearing, and throwing out, the technical argument that the hearing papers had been delivered to the wrong address (they went to the reg'd office, but the company had moved without notifying Companies House) the judge in this High Court case, a company specialist QC, re-opened the winding up case again. Not what I'd expected but fortunately I was able to argue successfully against the director, a solicitor himself, and the order stood.

What I'm getting at is the same thing could happen here. The judge brushes aside the two company thing as "minor" and concentrates on whether the car was parked within the "rules". Judges are a law unto themselves!

DJMC

HO87 wrote: »

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

Thanks.

Don't forget this isn't my debt. It's my son's. He has other advice from his mother ("pay it b***h") and his brother, LLB, LLM, LPC ("ignore it").

I'm litigious by nature, so if it were my debt I'd spend hundreds of hours fighting a £60 charge (I've spent a few already!) and enjoy the victory. BUT he has other advisers, particularly his mother who feels people who park inconsiderately should learn the error of their ways by coughing up the dosh.

A mother telling a son what to do is a hard thing to work around.
My son is an optometrist, just qualified. He can afford £60 but he can't afford to mess around with rules, laws, courts, correspondence, stress.
I've counter argued with my wife that this is an exercise from the University of Life, one to protect him from unscrupulous financial attack in his future.

Who will win?

Johno100

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 !!!

Parkwatch Ltd or Defence Systems trading as Parkwatch?

pappa_golf

Johno100 wrote: »

Parkwatch Ltd or Defence Systems trading as Parkwatch?

lets strip the company names away 08798058 or 08047971 trading as 08798058

companies house state that a company cannot trade as (or with the same name as) another that is registered at CH with a number

parkwatch simply cannot trade as defence systems
defence systems cannot trade as park watch

parkwatch is not a subsiduary of defence systems
defence systems are not a subsiduary of parkwatch

DJMC

pappa_golf wrote: »

lets strip the company names away 08798058 or 08047971 trading as 08798058

companies house state that a company cannot trade as (or with the same name as) another that is registered at CH with a number

parkwatch simply cannot trade as defence systems
defence systems cannot trade as park watch

parkwatch is not a subsiduary of defence systems
defence systems are not a subsiduary of parkwatch

Apologies to Mrcirrus, I shave now read his other thread. I have added to it with the signage and documents I have (post #62), here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107155&st=60&gopid=1243865&#entry1243865

Others here may wish to have a read through his case. It appears Defence Systems have dropped the "Limited" from their signage and paperwork!! See posts #55 & #57 in that thread.

Isn't there some law against confusing consumers? Logo on his charge notice from "Park Watch a division of "Defence Systems" (not Defence Systems Ltd) is the same as the one on my son's notice from Park Watch Limited (not "Park Watch", "Park Watch a division of Defence Systems", nor Defence Systems Ltd.)

Mrcirrus

My case today didn't get as far as disputing who my contract was with. it was suspended due to neither party submitting correct witness statements. It was in Wakefield but for obvious reasons I did not wish to associate myself with it on a forum just before the hearing.

DJMC

Mrcirrus wrote: »

My case today didn't get as far as disputing who my contract was with. it was suspended due to neither party submitting correct witness statements. It was in Wakefield but for obvious reasons I did not wish to associate myself with it on a forum just before the hearing.

If I can help in any way, please let me know? I'm thinking about "confusing" names, signage, correspondence names, logos. See you other thread.

pappa_golf

Mrcirrus wrote: »

My case today didn't get as far as disputing who my contract was with. it was suspended due to neither party submitting correct witness statements. It was in Wakefield but for obvious reasons I did not wish to associate myself with it on a forum just before the hearing.

I wonder if this is anything do do with the BPA investigating the situation*

as in 22/12

Dear Mr,

Thank you for your reply.

Following your phone call yesterday, we would like to inform you that your enquiry is still being looked into.

Once we have a resolution to your query, we shall be in touch.


*I said "investigating" , but in reality I meant protecting a member

Coupon-mad

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

Short answer = no.

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

lets strip the company names away 08798058 or 08047971 trading as 08798058

companies house state that a company cannot trade as (or with the same name as) another that is registered at CH with a number

parkwatch simply cannot trade as defence systems
defence systems cannot trade as park watch

Yes we get that bit. We are also well aware that what CoHo say must happen often differs from what happens in reality. CoHo's ability/willingness to deal/investigate relatively minor breaches is nil. Aside from that Defence Systems could effectively argue that Defence Systems Ltd t/a Park Watch is an historical trading style.

pappa_golf wrote: »

parkwatch is not a subsiduary of defence systems
defence systems are not a subsiduary of parkwatch

I am sorry but your constant repetition of this statement is not going to alter the fact that Defence Systems Ltd owns the entire shareholding of Park Watch Ltd. This means that Defence Systems Ltd owns Park Watch Ltd and that fulfils even the most basic definition of "subsidiary" - let alone the more detailed ones.

With respect this is very much a side issue. The real tests as far as this case is concerned are:

a). Who offered the contract at the location?
b). Who issued the PCN?
c). If the so-called debt is being enforced by virtue of POFA who is shown as the "creditor" on the PCN and NtK.

and finally:

d). If all of the entities identified as a result of a)., b). and c). above are one and the same (and I suspect that it may not be given the to-ing and fro-ing) whether that entity has a contract to enforce on the land in question and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority to do so from the landowner. Everything else is an irrelevance at this stage.