At Court hearing stage with CEL who have provided a Witness Statement

Castle

sdavies8501 wrote: »

i
you will see in thread the main documents have been posted , if you would like see further documents suchs as the exhibits mentioned in the witness statements please let me know

To start with:-
1) Copy of the sign(s)
2) Copy of the contract between the landowner and CEL.

nigelbb

sdavies8501 wrote: »

i did not get any feedback on my compliance query re NTK with pofa schedule 4 "when the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10"

Paragraph 10 (1) states:-

10(1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) or paragraph 6(1)(b) (as the case may be).

In fact no regulation providing for evidence which must accompany a notice have been made so it's effectively redundant.

sdavies8501

@nigelbb so are you saying the claimant does not need to provide evidence with the ntk?

nosferatu1001

There is no evidence they are required to produce. Its is why noone ever chases that point
It was an allowance for the "national authorioty" to add them in if they wanted, that is all.

Notice it "by any evicdence prescribed..." and there is no evidence prescribed under.. so there is no ...

Loadsofchildren123

Are we saying that this information about Versatile Parking Ltd is new?


If so, it isn't in your WS?
And have they provided the landowner contract? Was this between landowner and CEL then? So Versatile had no authority to operate there or issue claims and were effectively a trespasser, and CEL has no locus to bring this claim?


Then you need to write to CEL asap. The point is that there are not allowed to be any surprises. If you have something new to rely on that isn't in your Defence or WS then you need to tell them NOW, otherwise the court may not allow you to raise it:


Dear Sirs


Ref:......


In preparing for the hearing on xxxxx, I have again scrutinised the documents on which you are relying. I have noticed that the NtK names Versatile Parking Limited as "the creditor". I have looked again at the signage displayed on the land at the relevant time and also note that the entity named on the signs is, again, Versatile Parking Limited.


Versatile Parking Limited is registered at Company's House, company number xxxxxx. CEL [full name] Limited is registered as company number xxxxx. They are clearly two different entities.


I note that the landowner contract you have produced with your Witness Statement is between CEL[full name] and the landowner, not Versatile Parking Limited and the landowner. Accordingly, Versatile seems not only to be an entirely separate legal entity to your company, but also has no connection to the landowner and no authority to be on, or issue tickets to cars parked on, its land.


As such, it seems to me that you have no valid claim to pursue and the proceedings should never have been issued in the first place. Any contract you rely on was formed between the driver and Versatile Parking Limited and not between the driver and CEL [include CEL's full name] Limited. CEL [full name] has no locus standi to bring any claim. As for Versatile Parking Limited, they seem to have acted on the relevant land without authority, since they are not a party to the landowner contract, so neither does that company have any locus standi to bring a claim.




Accordingly, please confirm by return that you are withdrawing the claim with immediate effect. If you do so then I will not seek a costs order, even though I have wasted an enormous amount of time on this matter. If you do not withdraw, then I will be drawing this issue to the court's attention and will be seeking costs under CPR Part 27.14(2)(g).

sdavies8501

Yes ntk from Versatile is new , however I have never received ntk before the claimant ws which i stated in my witness statement.

No landowner contract has been provided.

With feedback form these forums Verstaile was identifed as a dormant company af the time of the alleged incident. should i add this point, if possible could you give me the wording for this too?

@castle the copy of the sign

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q807tia9m3p2tgk/20180822_182741.jpg?dl=0

twhitehousescat

how can the landowner have a contact with a dormant company , monies would be changing hands and versative have claimed to taxman/companies house that they were not performing

quote:
Buying and selling goods and services
Leasing or buying property
Employing staff
Paying directors’ salaries
Managing investments and receiving dividend payments
Issuing dividends to shareholders
Earning interest or paying bank charges
Paying legal or accountancy fees from the business bank account

I sence "another fake document

KeithP

sdavies8501, you should be doing exactly what Loadsofchildren123 has suggested you should do:

Then you need to write to CEL asap. The point is that there are not allowed to be any surprises. If you have something new to rely on that isn't in your Defence or WS then you need to tell them NOW, otherwise the court may not allow you to raise it:

You even have the letter already written for you - ready to send.

Castle

sdavies8501 wrote: »

Yes ntk from Versatile is new , however I have never received ntk before the claimant ws which i stated in my witness statement.

No landowner contract has been provided.

With feedback form these forums Verstaile was identifed as a dormant company af the time of the alleged incident. should i add this point, if possible could you give me the wording for this too?

@castle the copy of the sign

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q807tia9m3p2tgk/20180822_182741.jpg?dl=0

Thanks for the sign but it's not possible to read anything at the bottom; which companies are mentioned?

RobinofLoxley

sdavies8501 wrote: »

Yes ntk from Versatile is new , however I have never received ntk before the claimant ws which i stated in my witness statement.

No landowner contract has been provided.

With feedback form these forums Verstaile was identifed as a dormant company af the time of the alleged incident. should i add this point, if possible could you give me the wording for this too?

@castle the copy of the sign

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q807tia9m3p2tgk/20180822_182741.jpg?dl=0

That sign is a 'Starpark' sign. No mention of 'Versatile'.

Starpark is a trading name of CEL and although It's impossible to read the small print on the photo I suspect it says somewhere that this car park is enforced by Civil Enforcement Ltd.
So even weirder that the NTK is a Versatile Parking one.

This tangled web of companies, Civil Enforcement Ltd, Creative Parking Ltd, Creative Park Ltd, Creative (Contracts) Car Park Ltd, Starpark Management Ltd, Star Park Management No.2 Ltd and Versatile Parking Ltd all seem to have a Willem M. De Beer controlling them.
With links to Gary Wayne and Ashley Cohen the provider of the witness statement in this particular claim.