fluttering ticket going to court

Castle

claxtome wrote: »

Thank you Castle very much for that. I appreciate your help.
The Parking contract has been signed in the name of Iliad only (one of the lenders).

Can I use this info in anyway to help my cause as it is not signed by landowner?

At least I can complain to the landowner now about the Parking Charge.

1) Who's Iliad? (A company or a person)
2) The "contract" in your drop box seems to relate to a permit site not a pay and display site; as it doesn't mention who keeps the money from the pay and display tickets.

Loadsofchildren123

Iliad Group Jersey Ltd, a company incorporated in Jersey - doesn't seem to have lent, but has a registered charge - perhaps it is a parent company?


More importantly, APCOA (parking co) was given a 5 year lease of the land in 2009, which is recorded in the register. So they would be the legal "occupier" and entitled to operate on the land by virtue of the lease I think (obviously depends on what lease says, but the whole purpose of the lease would appear to grant them rights over the land to operate it as a car park).


Who is the PPC in this case, is it APCOA?

Castle

This might be important!!:-
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/15031364.Winwick_Street_site_stops_operating_as_car_park_following_threat_from_planning_officers/

Umkomaas

Castle wrote: »

This might be important!!:-
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/15031364.Winwick_Street_site_stops_operating_as_car_park_following_threat_from_planning_officers/

"The landowner notified us that he no longer wished to submit an application.

"He has stated that the payment facility and signage have been removed from the site and it has ceased to be used as a paid car park."

That reads to me like it could now become a free car park, with ESPEL still able to rampage there.

Loadsofchildren123

That's a gem. if it's the same place, they can't rely on an unlawful act on which to bring a claim (the unlawful act being the act of operating a car park without the relevant consents, including advertisement consent for the signage which is a criminal offence).


This is a very long document, but here's a link to my skeleton. Look at the sections on ex dolo malo non oritur actio

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjzj1n3sguuz7yo/SKELETON%20final%20anonymised.docx?dl=0


It seems to me that they are in trouble in the contract. Iliad signed it but they are clearly not the landowner.


What's the relevance of the APCOA lease? Is it an APCOA site? The newspaper link suggests it's ES not APCOA although that might be a different site.

Loadsofchildren123

Umkomaas wrote: »

That reads to me like it could now become a free car park, with ESPEL still able to rampage there.

Yes but they still have to have planning permission to use it as a carpark I would imagine, even if it's free.

Umkomaas

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Yes but they still have to have planning permission to use it as a carpark I would imagine, even if it's free.

It won’t bother ESPEL.

Castle

Umkomaas wrote: »

That reads to me like it could now become a free car park, with ESPEL still able to rampage there.

Well in August 2017 it was still pay and display with ESPEL signs up:-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3935854,-2.595308,3a,15y,121.42h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBlzscs47jT7Ts-xwaHtIJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

System

The site reported by the Guardian is a piece of land on the eastern side of Winwick Street opposite the Kings Head public house. The expansive car park area on the western side of Winwick Street is authorised

From the council for another case ... so which car park was it.

Castle

In even more confusing news; APCOA Parking claims that it's their car park!!:-
https://www.apcoa.co.uk/parking/warrington/winwick-street-warrington/