"Park Watch" are NOT Park watch LTD.

pappa_golf

defence systems do NOT own parkwatch , both company have the same peoples names at company house but are registed as seperate companies

Arlene Dinah SHONE Company Director

Geraldine Teresa Rose WHELAN Administrator

this is the same for both companies , at no point on any paperwork held by companies hous is there a T/A link , this T/A has been spoonfed to the BPA and they believe it , the BPA have even told the DVLA is "ok"

a). Who offered the contract at the location?
b). Who issued the PCN?

perhaps you should look at the latest updates on pepipoo , where an actual contact is shown

also at pepipoo , you will notice that after the BPA fudging the defence systams T?A ,, they are finally investigating this , also the DVLA are investigating and have promised a reply by the 7/01/2017

c). If the so-called debt is being enforced by virtue of POFA who is shown as the "creditor" on the PCN and NtK.

answered in the pepipoo thread

things have moved on a bit since your initial posting back in july

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107155

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

defence systems do NOT own parkwatch , both company have the same peoples names at company house but are registed as seperate companies

Arlene Dinah SHONE Company Director

Geraldine Teresa Rose WHELAN Administrator

this is the same for both companies , at no point on any paperwork held by companies hous is there a T/A link , this T/A has been spoonfed to the BPA and they believe it , the BPA have even told the DVLA is "ok"

a). Who offered the contract at the location?
b). Who issued the PCN?

perhaps you should look at the latest updates on pepipoo , where an actual contact is shown

also at pepipoo , you will notice that after the BPA fudging the defence systams T?A ,, they are finally investigating this , also the DVLA are investigating and have promised a reply by the 7/01/2017

c). If the so-called debt is being enforced by virtue of POFA who is shown as the "creditor" on the PCN and NtK.

answered in the pepipoo thread

things have moved on a bit since your initial posting back in july

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107155

A limited company can adopt any number of trading styles - many do. There is no requirement that the t/a titles are registered at CoHo and to suggest that they do is to mislead.

As far as the proprietorship is concerned I believe you fundamentally misunderstand who owns a company. The ownership of a company is not automatically vested in its directors unless they are also shareholders. A company is owned by its shareholders plain and simple. As far as Parkwatch is concerned the sole shareholder is clearly listed (both at the registration of the company and in its most recent Annual Return) as Defence Systems Ltd.

Whilst Mesdames Shone and Whelan are listed as directors they are not shareholders. Furthermore Messrs Baker and Clays - the former directors of both Park Watch Ltd and Defence Systems Ltd have handed over the directorship of both companies to the fine ladies above they have nevertheless retained their ownership of Defence Systems Ltd (50/50 split of shares) and as a result of that the default ownership of Park Watch Ltd as well.

DJMC

More news soon. I cannot yet post what I have found but will when I can.

DJMC

Major update posted by me at: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=107155&view=findpost&p=1245438

Post #88 on.

DJMC

Please note that I am withdrawing any allegations against Park Watch Ltd or Defence Systems Ltd and accordingly I shall not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter here or elsewhere.

twhitehousescat

heavies pop round? or did the confidentiality clause upon payout kick in?

Coupon-mad

DJMC wrote: »

Please note that I am withdrawing any allegations against Park Watch Ltd or Defence Systems Ltd and accordingly I shall not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter here or elsewhere.

Wow that's unusual! :cool:

Redx

it would seem a "gagging order" has been invoked , lol

twhitehousescat

for posterity and in case they are "deleted"

DVLA response

DVLA replied today, as follows:

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Data Sharing Strategy and Compliance Team Longview Road
Morriston
Swansea
SA6 7JL

Mr XXXXXX
Dear Mr XXXXXX
KADOEservice.support@dvla.gsi.gov.uk Website: https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving
Your Ref: Our Ref:

Date: 4th January 2017

RE: Defence Systems Limited Trading As Park Watch

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

Regulation 27 of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it. This Regulation provides a legal gateway for the release of information and is not based on the consent of the data subject.

The release of information to private car parking companies is considered to be a reasonable cause. Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. This does not infringe the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that personal data held on the vehicle register can be used in this way. You can find further details regarding the release of data from DVLA on the ICO website: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/dvla/

There are robust safeguards in place to help ensure that motorists are treated fairly when any parking charge is pursued. Vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice. The code of practice promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage, appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers.

The company in question, Defence Systems Limited T/As Park Watch, is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. The BPA’s code of practice is published on its website at https://www.britishparking.co.uk under the heading “Approved Operators Scheme”. If a member of this scheme does not comply with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the DVLA.

I have concluded my investigation and Defence Systems Ltd T/As Park Watch has advised that they had a template update to their system on 15th August. The system automatically updated the incorrect Companies House registration number. The mistake is due to Defence Systems T/As Park Watch and the incorrect Company House registration number was used. Park Watch Limited is a legal entity and a subsidiary to Defence Systems Limited. Defence Systems Ltd T/As Park Watch has now rectified this and all templates have been amended to show the correct registration.

Defence Systems Limited T/As Park Watch has also provided DVLA with photographic evidence which shows the breach of terms and conditions of the car park – parked outside of a marked bay and therefore met reasonable cause to request information.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has confirmed to DVLA that there has been a failure by Defence Systems Ltd to comply with the Code of Practice. They have been in contact with Defence Systems Ltd and set out changes that they require them to make to ensure compliance. BPA have also confirmed that Defence Systems Ltd are to refund you the payment that you made as a gesture of good will.

If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN.

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure for your reference. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations...icle-licensing- agency/about/complaints-procedure

Yours sincerely
Mrs Ceri Thomas
Data Sharing Strategy and Compliance Team


BPA response


This just received from the BPA:

"Dear Mr *****

Thank you for your patience while we have looked into your complaint about Defence Systems Ltd.

We have concluded that there has been a failure by Defence Systems to comply with our Code of Practice.

In terms of how we will deal with this matter, we have referred to the process documented in Clause 6.6 of the Code and have made contact with Defence Systems and set out the changes that we require them to make to achieve compliance.

As part of the rectification that we require from them, we have asked Defence Systems to refund you the payment that you made by the end of the week.

These changes, including the refund, have been agreed to and completed to our satisfaction and we have closed the case accordingly.

Yours Sincerely,

Esme Berry

AOS Investigations Team

British Parking Association"


both the DVLA and the BPA have "fudged" an answer and simply stated that a template had changed

even tho both admit a breach of code of practice parkwatch/defence systems do not seem to have been sanctioned by either the DVLA or BPA , just a case of "case closed" <full stop>

fortunatly the wayback machine disagrees with that

the OP stated on 6th december

"I found some more "evidence" today to support my suspicions.

Need to make a phone call Monday to see if my theory is correct.

Not sure if I'll be able to spill the beans at that point. Sorry to be cryptic, but the wait may be worth it!"


then there was silence ,

Coupon-mad

"Dear Mr *****

Thank you for your patience while we have looked into your complaint about Defence Systems Ltd.

We have concluded that there has been a failure by Defence Systems to comply with our Code of Practice.

In terms of how we will deal with this matter, we have referred to the process documented in Clause 6.6 of the Code and have made contact with Defence Systems and set out the changes that we require them to make to achieve compliance.

As part of the rectification that we require from them, we have asked Defence Systems to refund you the payment that you made by the end of the week.

These changes, including the refund, have been agreed to and completed to our satisfaction and we have closed the case accordingly.

Yours Sincerely,

Esme Berry

AOS Investigations Team

British Parking Association"

The above should be framed - the BPA rarely admit to any 'failure' by an AOS member.