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

Loadsofchildren123

If starpark is a trading name of CEL, the website would HAVE to say this and to identify CEL by its company registration number, registered address and proper name, and make clear that starpark is a "trading as name".


You must complain to Companies House.


Great that driver not identified, keeps this much simpler.

Loadsofchildren123

Sorry, just seen Robinof's 3am post at the top of page 4:


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.

So amend the para where I say it's difficult to establish who Starpark is:

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 prominent lettering on the foot of the sign. The website contains no information other than that Starpark provides parking services. It does not include a company number, name or address. It does not describe Starpark as a "trading as" name. It simply invites you to contact them on the same website identified on the sign. Neither the website nor the sign contains any information about whether it is a legal entity and claims that 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 a company of that name on the Companies House website (there are other similarly named companies which do not appear to be the same, but I have found two companies of a similar name which are controlled by the same person who controls your company - Starpark Management Ltd, Star Park Management No.2 Ltd).

Loadsofchildren123

Can you tell me exactly what the sign says about CEL? I have tried but can't read it.
Does it say starpark is the "trading as" name for CEL? Does it include a company registration number or registered address for CEL?

Loadsofchildren123

Just send the letter to CEL, not the court.


Attach a copy of any documents you will want to rely on, I suggest a printout of the companies house website search showing the registration numbers and filing histories for CEL, Versatile and those two Starpark companies. Click on the "people" option and then "persons with significant control" and print those off too. Also printout that starpark.co.uk website page. Describe these enclosures at the foot of the letter.


Tell CEL they must include the letter and all enclosures in the court bundle (does your order include a provision for them to make a court bundle, as not all do?)


Don't trust them. Take a copy to court anyway, plus a spare for them and one for you. Hand the judge's copy in to the usher when you identify yourself and ask for it to be given to the judge before the case starts.


Are you doing a skeleton argument to help you argue your case on the day? If so, attach this letter to the Skeleton.


I think you'll find this one is withdrawn.

Loadsofchildren123

Versatile
is controlled by Creative Carpark Bidco Ltd
which is in turn partly owned by.....
CEL
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11074716/filing-history

RobinofLoxley

@Loadsofchildren - On the BPA's list of approved operators Civil Enforcement Ltd is listed as also trading as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve. Starpark is not a company as such but a trading name of CEL and as you say the starpark signs should state that.

As I mentioned earlier (post #61) there are a complex tangled web of companies including Civil Enforcement Ltd, Creative Parking Ltd, Creative Park Ltd, Creative (Contracts) Car Park Ltd, CreativePark Bidco, Starpark Management Ltd, Star Park Management No.2 Ltd, Park Solve Ltd and Versatile Parking Ltd. Most of which have the same address, The Studio, St Nicholas Close, Elstree, Herts, WD6 3EW.

All these companies seem to have the same people involved in them in one way or another. They are
Willem Martinhus De Beer, Graham Cowan, Gary Wayne and Ashley Cohen (he of the witness statement in this claim) I believe the latter two have previously encountered trouble with the courts.

Loadsofchildren123

Star Park Management Limited
is controlled by Creative Technologies and Systems Ltd (other shareholder is Willem de Beer)
which is in turn controlled by Creative Car Park Bidco Limited
which in turn controls..... Versatile, which in turn owned partly by CEL


The idiots have confused themselves by weaving their tangled web


I've followed through the corporate ownership - each company says the majority of the shares are owned by another company, then another, and it eventually leads back to a Graham Cowan.

Loadsofchildren123

The crucial thing is what exactly the signs say about CEL. do they properly identify CEL with co reg number and reg address and do they say starpark is CEL trading as starpark

Still you are left with the Versatile argument.

IF (big if) the sign does properly identify CEL (I'd say it doesn't even if the wording is adequate because it's in such small print with such prominence given to starpark), then thinking through the contractual points, this is CEL's case:


CEL offers a contract in its sign [I don't think that sign does offer a contract, it doesn't appear to say what will happen if you don't pay so can't be saying "we offer you parking on these terms, if you don't comply with them you agree to pay a charge of £100", the usual sort of wording, but again I can't read that small print]


Driver accepts offer by parking


Contract formed between CEL and driver, which is that since driver didn't pay or overstayed then (s)he owes the contractual charge of £100.


CEL sends NtK to the RK as per POFA, so RK is either liable because he was driving, or is liable as RK under POFA.

Of course, if the sign doesn't properly name CEL then it's an unidentified entity called Starpark which is offering the parking and CEL is not starpark because it hasn't identified itself as such.

Even if their contractual arguments work, the POFA one fails dismally because CEL never sent the NtK. Therefore CEL cannot rely on POFA and have to prove that RK was driving to make him liable for the original charge.


So OP I hope you have some evidence that you weren't driving (eg other individuals named on your policy, others do regularly use your car, you were elsewhere on the day etc etc).

RobinofLoxley

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Can you tell me exactly what the sign says about CEL? I have tried but can't read it.
Does it say starpark is the "trading as" name for CEL? Does it include a company registration number or registered address for CEL?

I would imagine the sign says "Enforcement carried out by Civil Enforcement Ltd" as this one in a photo from a recent Starpark/CEL thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kao14lmzu8dr6zh/IMG_4138.jpg?dl=0

That other case is also a shambles by CEL.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5835119/ticket-for-daring-to-use-a-hand-car-wash

Loadsofchildren123

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

I would imagine the sign says "Enforcement carried out by Civil Enforcement Ltd" as this one in a photo from a recent Starpark/CEL thread.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kao14lmzu8dr6zh/IMG_4138.jpg?dl=0

That other case is also a shambles by CEL.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5835119/ticket-for-daring-to-use-a-hand-car-wash

Yes, the last paragraph of the sign in this case looks like that one, I can see the Liverpool and postcode at the end.


So then it doesn't say that starpark is a trading name of CEL. Just that CEL will carry out enforcement.


The question then is whether that's a contractual term.


the wording is terrible. It's forbidding, it doesn't offer a contract to "pay £100 if you don't abide by the conditions", as signs usually do.


It doesn't identify who your contract is being made with.


Therefore you'd argue the contract was made with starpark, the prominently named party on the signage, and CEL has no rights under it. The part that says CEL will carry out enforcement is meaningless.


I can't offer you a contract, and in it say that in the case of a breach my irritating Aunty Flo will enforce it. It's my contract and only I can enforce it against you.