Eurocarparks CST law LBA SAR no response

Fruitcake

Euro Car Parks Ltd, incorporated 1976. Company Number 01270612

ECP (Holdings) PLC, incorporated 1985. Company Number 01924387

Two entirely separate companies. Euro Car Parks Ltd are not the landowner. In order to have authority to scam they must either have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, ECP (Holdings) PLC.

With regards to this: -
"Furthermore ECP has not sought planning permission for the land use or displayed signage."

They require Planning Permission for ANPR scameras and Advertising Consent for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence (but only the Council can pursue it).

I can't remember now, did you ever get a copy of the alleged contract? I don't believe you have shown it to us.

judrop500

Fruitcake said:

Euro Car Parks Ltd, incorporated 1976. Company Number 01270612

ECP (Holdings) PLC, incorporated 1985. Company Number 01924387

Two entirely separate companies. Euro Car Parks Ltd are not the landowner. In order to have authority to scam they must either have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, ECP (Holdings) PLC.

With regards to this: -
"Furthermore ECP has not sought planning permission for the land use or displayed signage."

They require Planning Permission for ANPR scameras and Advertising Consent for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence (but only the Council can pursue it).

I can't remember now, did you ever get a copy of the alleged contract? I don't believe you have shown it to us.

They did not send a contract as part of their bundle. Is the onus on me to seek this out, or for them to provide it?

judrop500

Coupon-mad said:

Crib sheet looks OK to me if that's your main points, very well organised.

Worst case would be you lose and the Judge tells you to pay, but you should be able to get the sum reduced by the false added 'costs' that they never paid to anyone.

Thanks for all your help @c@Coupon-mad
Will the moment to request this be obvious? Is there anything I should listen out for, in the event that I lose?

Fruitcake

judrop500 said:

Fruitcake said:

Euro Car Parks Ltd, incorporated 1976. Company Number 01270612

ECP (Holdings) PLC, incorporated 1985. Company Number 01924387

Two entirely separate companies. Euro Car Parks Ltd are not the landowner. In order to have authority to scam they must either have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, ECP (Holdings) PLC.

With regards to this: -
"Furthermore ECP has not sought planning permission for the land use or displayed signage."

They require Planning Permission for ANPR scameras and Advertising Consent for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence (but only the Council can pursue it).

I can't remember now, did you ever get a copy of the alleged contract? I don't believe you have shown it to us.

They did not send a contract as part of their bundle. Is the onus on me to seek this out, or for them to provide it?

I suspect they will claim they are the landowner and therefore do not need a contract.
However, you have claimed in your defence that they do not have landowner authority and the Land Registry entry shows the claimant is not the landowner, therefore a contract with or flowing from the landowner via an agent is required.

Stress the point that the landowner and scammer are two entirely separate companies as detailed in Companies House records.

D_P_Dance

They must provide a contract. to the court. and to you.    If they do not they will almost certainly fail

Coupon-mad

Will the moment to request this be obvious? 

Nope.  You rarely get spoon fed by a Judge.  It's part of what you argue when it is your turn, explaining why PPCs can't add false costs and pointing to ParkingEye v Somerfield (High Court stage) about that.  Then if a person loses, they should certainly not be held to pay the fake added costs as well.

judrop500

Fruitcake said:

judrop500 said:

Fruitcake said:

Euro Car Parks Ltd, incorporated 1976. Company Number 01270612

ECP (Holdings) PLC, incorporated 1985. Company Number 01924387

Two entirely separate companies. Euro Car Parks Ltd are not the landowner. In order to have authority to scam they must either have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, ECP (Holdings) PLC.

With regards to this: -
"Furthermore ECP has not sought planning permission for the land use or displayed signage."

They require Planning Permission for ANPR scameras and Advertising Consent for signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence (but only the Council can pursue it).

I can't remember now, did you ever get a copy of the alleged contract? I don't believe you have shown it to us.

They did not send a contract as part of their bundle. Is the onus on me to seek this out, or for them to provide it?

I suspect they will claim they are the landowner and therefore do not need a contract.
However, you have claimed in your defence that they do not have landowner authority and the Land Registry entry shows the claimant is not the landowner, therefore a contract with or flowing from the landowner via an agent is required.

Stress the point that the landowner and scammer are two entirely separate companies as detailed in Companies House records.

Thanks. Will do.

judrop500

Ok so I gave my contact details to the court over a week ago, and the hearing is on Friday. Does anyone know when I should expect to receive log-in details for the hearing?

KeithP

judrop500 said:

Ok so I gave my contact details to the court over a week ago, and the hearing is on Friday. Does anyone know when I should expect to receive log-in details for the hearing?

Why not phone the court and ask them?

judrop500

The case has been adjourned because CST/ ECP lost the images I sent. 

DDJ Emery said that it was a “properly contested claim, a properly defended claim.”

He rejected the submission that ECP and ECP Holdings were the same company.

He told the advocate that an aerial plan was an essential piece of evidence.

He said they hd provided a “paucity of evidence.”

My question now is: surely the Judge has given ECP/CST a heads up on what evidence they need to provide for the hearing when it eventually takes place? Has this adjournment messed up my chances?