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

nosferatu1001

OP, so you need to make sure you send that letter, as drafted. NO DELAYS PLEASE. It is very important
A NtK Issued by Versatile, a supposedly dormant company, is double trouble for CEL.

sdavies8501

Do I also need a send a copy to the courts?

I have had to edit as the signage appears to show CEL and not Verstaile, the landowner contract was not provided within the claimants witness statements also added the dormancy issues, please let me know if this okay

Dear Sirs

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 at the signage you provided with your Witness statement and note that the entity named on the signs appear to be Civil Enforcement 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 understand from the witness statement that CEL have a contract with 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.

In addition Versatile is incapable of entering into, maintaining or offering contracts as it was and is dormant since before the material date.

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 and were a dormant at time of the alleged incident, 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).

nosferatu1001

Yes, of course

Unless youre making an offer to the claimant, you are sending EVERYTHING to the claimant AND court. This isnt optional.

sdavies8501

Thank you for the quick response

Do you have any feedback on my revised draft

Loadsofchildren123

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. The NtK is not a document I saw before you served your Witness Statement and so this is not a matter dealt with in my own evidence. however, I put you on notice that I will be making representations about it to the court, as set out in this letter.


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. Interestingly, Versatile Parking Limited is clearly shown to be a dormant company, exempt from filing annual returns and other statutory documentation. It is clear that Versatile Parking Limited is not a dormant company and I am therefore reporting this matter to Companies House.


Setting aside for a moment the issue of Versatile Parking Limited being identified as the Creditor, you have produced no evidence of CEL's (or Versatile Parking Limited's) authority to operate on the relevant land. Please send me a copy of any contract between your company and the landowner. I am entitled to see this, it is a document of central relevance to your claim. Without it, there is no authority to issue charges in respect of parking or to pursue them via court proceedings. At best, the driver was trespassing on the land and only a landowner can pursue proceedings in relation to trespass. Your own ATA Code of Practice requires you to have a written contract with the landowner, so there must be one.

Put simply, these two issues are fatal to your case and you should never have issued this Claim in the first place because you have no locus standi. You are clearly the incorrect Claimant, because either:


a. 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; or
b. you cannot show any authority to act on the relevant land or to issue and pursue charges, because you have not produced any contract between you and the landowner.


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).

Loadsofchildren123

Sorry, hold fire, I missed the last few messages.


I can't see on that sign any mention of CEL. Only Starpark. If that is a trading name, there would HAVE to be mention of CEL trading as Starpark. That's company law. The law is that if they have a trading name, the website, letterhead etc has to identify the company. I think it's a criminal offence.


My experience of reporting things like this to Companies House is that they reply and ask you for evidence of the infringement/offence and they will investigate it. If you google it there will be some useful government leaflet that explains all this and how to report it to Companies House. When Cos House emails you back and asks for evidence, send them the links to the websites I've found and your photo (take a better one that shows the t&cs clearly). None of them mention CEL, and the internet says that starpark is a separate company.


I've googled starpark.


I've found this:
http://www.star-park.co.uk/
Which says nothing about CEL or a trading name, but names Star Park Review Ltd. No idea if this is a real company or not.


This website names Starpark as a company in its own right:
https://starparking.co.uk/contact.php
STAR PARKING LTD
AERO HOUSE
611 SIPSON ROAD
WEST DRAYTON
UB7 OJD
TEL: 0208 897 4075
EMAIL: contact@starparking.co.uk
COMPANY NUMBER: 06605903
VAT NUMBER: 184-5027-06

Loadsofchildren123

Companies House shows that A Mr Samiuddin Mohammed owns over 75% of the shares in Starpark. Other named individuals include Michael Youngman and Kevin Trottman (both resigned as directors). It's been a registered company since 2008.

sdavies8501

So I will change this to

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

to

I have looked again at the signage you provided in your Witness statement note that the entity named on the signs is Civil Enforcement Ltd

Loadsofchildren123

https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/signs-stationery-and-promotional-material


This says what a company has to put on your website and on its stationery. Arguably the NtK is "stationery"


https://www.gov.uk/invoicing-and-taking-payment-from-customers/invoices-what-they-must-include


This is what a company must include on an invoice - arguably the NtK is an invoice.


https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company
Explains how to complain


I'd complain that Versatile has declared itself dormant but clearly wasn't on the date it issued your NtK (is it also named on the windscreen pcn?)


I'd complain that Starpark has included no information on its signage about who they are.


I'd complain that Civil Enforcement Limited are trying to rely on Versatile's documentation and the signage which names starpark to bring legal proceedings, although Versatile and Starpark are both separate companies, and starpark in particular holds itself out on the internet as a company (backed up by the information held by Companies House), which has nothing at all to do with CEL.

RobinofLoxley

sdavies8501 wrote: »

Do I also need a send a copy to the courts?

I have had to edit as the signage appears to show CEL and not Verstaile, the landowner contract was not provided within the claimants witness statements also added the dormancy issues, please let me know if this okay

Dear Sirs

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 at the signage you provided with your Witness statement and note that the entity named on the signs appear to be Civil Enforcement 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 understand from the witness statement that CEL have a contract with 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.

In addition Versatile is incapable of entering into, maintaining or offering contracts as it was and is dormant since before the material date.

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 and were a dormant at time of the alleged incident, 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).

Note that Versatile Parking is currently listed as an active company Though it did file accounts as a dormant company from March 2013 to March 2017. Therefore was dormant when your NTK was issued in early 2016.

A further sub plot is that in November 2017 75% of the shares in Versatile Parking were transferred to a new company set up by Gary Wayne called Creative Park Bidco.