Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) – POPLA Appeal Advice

Han_Solo

Thanks all for your assistance and advice regarding the confirmation of authority, most helpful!

I have been revising my witness statement, but also doing some digging regarding the landowner. It's only a few pounds to obtain land titles so I purchased them to discover that the freehold is owned by GLA Land and Property Limited (07911046) and the leasehold for the Connaught Tavern by Qualitylet UK Limited (03245817).

Interestingly, Qualitylet UK Limited and Fox Connaught Limited (11276518) have shared directors, both past and present.

Would a leaseholder normally need special permission from the freeholder to engage with a private parking company or is that possibly allowed within the general terms of the title by default?

I have the titles in PDF format, is it okay to post them here?

KeithP

GLA Land and Property Limited (07911046) - I wonder if that has anything to do with the Greater London Authority?

In other words, is the land "subject to statutory control" and therefore not 'relevant land' as defined by POFA? 

When one looks at the Companies House record, the five current Directors have occupations listed as: Chief Of Staff, Deputy Mayor For Housing And Residential Development, Local Government Officer, Local Government Officer and Project Director.
They look like they may be local government employees.

And the Registered Address - 5 Endeavour Square, London, United Kingdom, E20 1JN - is an address for Transport for London.

Maybe Linkedin will tell you more about those directors but I haven't checked.

nosferatu1001

They're not the same companies are they..? 

Han_Solo

KeithP said:

GLA Land and Property Limited (07911046) - I wonder if that has anything to do with the Greater London Authority?

In other words, is the land "subject to statutory control" and therefore not 'relevant land' as defined by POFA? 

When one looks at the Companies House record, the five current Directors have occupations listed as: Chief Of Staff, Deputy Mayor For Housing And Residential Development, Local Government Officer, Local Government Officer and Project Director.
They look like they may be local government employees.

And the Registered Address - 5 Endeavour Square, London, United Kingdom, E20 1JN - is exactly the same as that for Transport for London.

Maybe Linkedin will tell you more about those directors but I haven't checked.

Looks like you are on to something, the registered owners in full:
GLA LAND AND PROPERTY LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 07911046) of Estates, Housing & Land Directorate, Greater London Authority, 3rd Floor, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2AA

Parties to the leasehold are: London Development Agency, Mount Bay Investments Two Limited, and Royal Docks Management Authority Limited.
The freehold document makes mention of Port London Authority quite frequently.
There appears to be no specific statement in either title along the lines of "subject to statutory control".

KeithP

Han_Solo said:

KeithP said:

GLA Land and Property Limited (07911046) - I wonder if that has anything to do with the Greater London Authority?

In other words, is the land "subject to statutory control" and therefore not 'relevant land' as defined by POFA? 

When one looks at the Companies House record, the five current Directors have occupations listed as: Chief Of Staff, Deputy Mayor For Housing And Residential Development, Local Government Officer, Local Government Officer and Project Director.
They look like they may be local government employees.

And the Registered Address - 5 Endeavour Square, London, United Kingdom, E20 1JN - is exactly the same as that for Transport for London.

Maybe Linkedin will tell you more about those directors but I haven't checked.

There appears to be no specific statement in either title along the lines of "subject to statutory control".

Paragraph (3) of Sch4 of POFA defines 'relevant land'.
It says "a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority" is not relevant land.
It goes on to say that Transport for London is a 'traffic authority'.

KeithP

Anyway, the 'relevant land' stuff is only relevant if the PPC does not know who was driving.

I have not checked back through your thread to see if that's so.

Umkomaas

Great detective work @KeithP. 

Han_Solo

Thanks @KeithP, I did not reveal who was driving.

Further digging has revealed that the land is listed as part of GLA group's land and asset portfolio here: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/land-and-asset-portfolio (search E16 1JR).

From Wikipedia: "Areas which the GLA has responsibility for include transport, policing, fire and rescue, development and strategic planning. The GLA does not directly provide any services itself. Instead, its work is carried out by functional bodies which come under the GLA umbrella and work under the policy direction of the mayor and assembly." Therefore, could the GLA be considered a traffic authority by extension given that it created TfL via the GLA Act 1999?

Han_Solo

I have attached an updated version of my witness statement that now includes more detail regarding the 'confirmation of authority' and its lack of compliance with the Companies Act. I have also mentioned land ownership, but just in regard to Fox Connaught Limited not being the land controller as stated. Given that it's not entirely clear whether it is 'relevant land' or not I thought it best to leave this out. There is also an expanded schedule of costs.

Comments welcome.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Remove this because you are wrongly assuming the blame for them not putting a conspicuous keypad & sign at the bar!

The remainder of my time was spent catching up with my friend so unfortunately it simply slipped my mind to confirm the need for a permit, or otherwise. I did not act with malicious intent.

And remove this: as there is no 'fee' nor 'offence':

or negotiate (a reduced fee for a first-time offence, for example).

Add instead that your position is there was no relevant obligation and no breach of contract because there was no mechanism to alert patrons of the bar to gain some sort of permit and no signs about it.  So the term requiring people in the bar to somehow gain a permit at 'Hotel Reception' was void for impossibility.

Looks good apart from that.