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

Loadsofchildren123

Where does it name CEL on the sign?
What exactly does it say?


Can you also confirm (so I don't have to read back) that the driver has not been identified and you are dealing with this as the RK?

sdavies8501

Driver has not been identified and am dealing with this as the RK

nosferatu1001

Yep, and you need to make it clear that the notice to keeper came from a different company, who had no standing to issue this charge and consequently you have no standing to pursue.

nosferatu1001

SO you cannot say the signs say CEL
They dont
They say Starpark

SO the signs say starpark, a Ltd company
The ntk says versatile, who were dormant at the time AND are also a ltd company
yet the claim has been issued by CEL, who are neither the supposed operator on site Starpark nor are tehy the issuer of tthe NTK.

sdavies8501

The small print in the picture of the sign , I do see but barely Civil Enforcement being mentioned

nosferatu1001

But they say STARTPARK in huge letters
Who are a ltd company
A consumer cant be expected to think a sign headed ABC ltd company is doing anything other than offering somethign other than services from ABC ltd.

sdavies8501

should i take the bit about the sign out

Loadsofchildren123

Firstly, post #67 is a red herring, that's an airport parking co, not a PPC. Sorry!




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 an entity called Starpark.


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. From 2013 to 2017 it had declared itself to Companies House to be dormant.


CEL [full name] Limited is registered as company number xxxxx.


Starpark is more difficult to identify. A google of the name leads to a website starpark.co.uk, which is the same website identified in large lettering on the foot of the sign. The website contains no information other than that Starpark parking services. It simply invites you to contact them. It contains no information about what it is (eg a company or a trading as name) and claims Starpark is a member of BPA's Accredited Operator Scheme, although they are not listed as such on the BPA website. Starpark does not appear to be a registered company, at least there is no reference to it on the Companies House website (there are other similarly named companies which do not appear to be the same).


Civil Enforcement Limited, Versatile Parking Limited and the entity calling itself Starpark and claiming to be an accredited member of BPA are clearly three different entities. Interestingly, Versatile Parking Limited is clearly shown to have been a dormant company until 2017, exempt from filing annual returns and other statutory documentation. It is clear that Versatile Parking Limited was not a dormant company on the date it sent the Notice to Keeper and I am therefore reporting this matter to Companies House. I am also reporting your company for trying to rely on signage which identifies Starpark and an invoice issued by Versatile Parking Limited (ie the Notice to Keeper) to pursue proceedings against me, and for failing to identify your company on the signage and the NtK (the obligation includes identifying your company name, address and registration number).


Setting aside for a moment the issue of Versatile Parking Limited being identified as the Creditor, and the naming of Starpark on the signage, you have produced no evidence of CEL's (or Versatile Parking Limited's, or Starpark's) authority to operate on the relevant land. Nor have you explained what CEL's connection is to these two other entities and why you say that you are entitled to sue on the strength of a Notice to Keeper issued by Versatile Parking Limited. Please send me a copy of any contract between your company (ie CEL) 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. Please also explain the connection between CEL, Versatile and Starpark. At best, the driver was trespassing on the land and only a landowner can pursue proceedings in relation to trespass (and then only against the trespasser, not the registered keeper of the vehicle they were driving). 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 or an entity identified as Starpark 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

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

Yes, add this bit in Robinof...'s post

Loadsofchildren123

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

But they say STARTPARK in huge letters
Who are a ltd company
A consumer cant be expected to think a sign headed ABC ltd company is doing anything other than offering somethign other than services from ABC ltd.

On further reflection, Starpark isn't a ltd co. The star parking I found is not the same.
the only thing on the internet about Starpark is this: