fluttering ticket going to court

System

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

Shall we add to the confusion. OP needs to call the council and ask who pays the NDR.

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/summary/18848667000?uarn=4279302000

Loadsofchildren123

The land registry title claxtome posted says that APCOA was granted a 5 year lease of the land in 2009

claxtome

OK thanks very much for all your replies to my message from last night.

Finding it difficult to keep up.

Note: There is at least 1 other car park called "Winwick Street" in the area. The other one I know is opposite the train station and is now managed by the council.
The one mentioned in the Guardian article link is not the one in question.

I think I need to go for a walk around this area and take note of car parks and who manages them. This was why I did a Land Registry SIM search which returned the 4 titles in question; 3 of which say similar things. (Don't want to spend any more well earned money to get title plans)


Quick summary in case I am reading what people have posted wrong

ESPEL are the PPC who currently manage the car park in question.
There is planning permission for the site to operate as a car park but the advertising consent has run out. (mentioned in my WS).
Seem to remember the new planning permission application mentioned Iliad.

A representative of Iliad signed the out of date contract I have been sent. (Was originally for 1 year but have been told previously will continue in an adhoc way)
(Link in the opening post of this thread has a redacted version of the contract)

Iliad are a property developers I thought based out of Liverpool but could be wrong:
http://iliadgroup.com/about/

The landowner is:
"The Winwick Partnership LLP" which is registered in England & Wales under ref LP009364. There are two general partners; Faraday Management Ltd (registered in the I.O.M) and Winwick Ltd, (Reg No 04969819).

The legal charge in favour of Investec Bank PLC is confirmed here:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04969819/charges/_axRbNK-ayVowSonvY7Z-9KcLDg

The Deed mentioned in the title linked below mentions all three of them and includes Iliad (who a representative of that company signed the parking contract):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8j63yhjx5mba5y/RegisterCH178919-1.pdf?dl=0

Please correct me if my above information is wrong.

Now onto APCOA.

APCOA signed a lease for 5 years in 2009.

I know from looking at planning applications that the car park in question has an extension to the plannning permission and remember Illiad was mentioned in this.
I need to do some more digging about APCOA and planning permission and will look into the posts and links people have posted on APCOA.

Also I think a call to the council to ask who pays the domestic rates is worth a look.

I sense something is not right over this and want to dig further...

Thanks for reading and appreciate any further help...

System

Also I think a call to he council to ask who pays the domestic rates is worth it.

I think you meant Non-Domestic Rates ...

Loadsofchildren123

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73735850&postcount=31
Have a look at this claxtome, it's a good argument for you to run

Loadsofchildren123

claxtome, perhaps write them a letter pointing out this argument/judgment and make a drop hands offer? And threaten 27.14(2)(g) costs.

Kirchenmaus

Castle wrote: »

Creation of a legal interest in land:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/execution-of-deeds/practice-guide-8-execution-of-deeds

Authorisation to operate a parking scheme on a piece of land does not create an "interest in land"; it is a licence. Accordingly, no deed is required for a contract granting such a licence, and Section 44 is not relevant.

--Kirchenmaus

System

Authorisation to operate a parking scheme on a piece of land does not create an "interest in land"; it is a licence. Accordingly, no deed is required for a contract granting such a licence, and Section 44 is not relevant.

But at least one judge has used s44 as being relevant. Pity there is no transcript.

So an OP has the choice between a judge's interpretation and your own KM.

Kirchenmaus

IamEmanresu wrote: »

But at least one judge has used s44 as being relevant. Pity there is no transcript.

So an OP has the choice between a judge's interpretation and your own KM.

Of course, my opinion should not be relied upon simply because I have offered it, but I (unlike the judge in this case) have explained my reasoning, which means that anyone who is competent to do so could reach the same conclusion as I have. Until I see the judge's reasoning, or anyone else's which comes to the same conclusion (and makes sense), I'm afraid I can only go with mine!

--Kirchenmaus

System

I'm afraid I can only go with mine!

Might I suggest you sprinkle a bit of empiricism of this area to backup your analytical skills.

Analytical opinion can only be formed from the sources consulted.