Private PCN - Excel Parking - WE WON!

Fruitcake

Have a look at this thread concerning a Court of Appeal case that is persuasive on the lower courts. The judge in the appeal case said that redactions in disclosure are unacceptable and unfair.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure/p1

The contract supplied by the scammers is with the land occupier, not the land owner. They are two different entities. (Do you know who the landowner is?)
The signatories of the contract have been redacted so their is no proof either the land occupier or the parking scammers actually signed it. If the scammers/scamlicitors supply the court/judge with an unredacted version, then that is a breach of the CPR.

For a contract to be validly executed, it must comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, and must be signed by two authorised people from each party. Authorised signatories are company directors and company secretaries. One director can sign as long as it is witnessed by another person who also signs.

The date the contract is due to start has been written in by hand, but there is no signature from an authorised person or persons; not even initials, to show the person who wrote the date had the authority to do so.

Snakes_Belly

daniel_uk said:

Coupon - You can't come from the other end of the road as it's not a through road, just checked. Leads to a block of flats. Probably the reason why the sign is in that direction. I'll stick with the current image. But the sign says that terms and conditions are on the sign inside the car park by the meter. It also says by entering the car park you are subject to and agree in full to terms and conditions. How can that be when you don't know what they are before you enter. Is this a joke?!

This is the old location of the sign. Same sign that is angled towards the road. Looks like they changed its location.

Landowner contract

OMG. Mr K what are you thinking of. 

Coupon-mad

Imagine signing that...!

I often think that when I read these horrific contracts allowing an ex-clamper to sue the landowner/retailer's patrons.  What on earth are the landowners thinking of?  I agree with you, Snakes_Belly.

Flipping heck, if you want honest management, fix an honesty box to the wall instead and keep the money.

Snakes_Belly

Coupon-mad said:

Imagine signing that...I often think that when I read these horrific contracts allowing an ex-clamper to sue the landowner/retailer's patrons.

It's Nigel Kirk, the auctioneer who sometimes appears on Bargain Hunt. What was he thinking of? I am shocked that he would employ them. 

Snakes_Belly

Snakes_Belly said:

Coupon-mad said:

Imagine signing that...I often think that when I read these horrific contracts allowing an ex-clamper to sue the landowner/retailer's patrons.

It's Nigel Kirk, the auctioneer who sometimes appears on Bargain Hunt. What was he thinking of? I am shocked that he would employ them. 

I was going to that auction in Nottingham on the day that I was ticketed by Excel in Burton on Trent. How weird. I have hardly been there since the ticket. They have indirectly lost my business as a result of that ticket. I have been since the ticket, but not so often and from Rugeley Trent Valley.

daniel_uk

Yes, its Nigel Kirk. I did blur the names out. I am struggling for time on this case as my work is very busy for me. What about the sign on entering. There are no terms and conditions on it so how does this hold water?

nosferatu1001

You were not told to blur the names out. Dont. 
There is no personal data in a commercial contract

nosferatu1001

The sign on entering does not have to have the full T&C on,  but it does have to direct you to other signs that do have the t and c on

Snakes_Belly

The case that Excel cite is the Shoe Lane Case. In this case the contract was formed at the entrance to the car park. The car park in question was a barrier car park where the driver would stop and be able to read a sign. Compare this Excel sign with a barrier car park and I don't think that there is any comparison to the Shoe Lane Case or that the contract was formed at this point. Excel will say that it is and cite Shoe Lane. You will argue that the contract was not formed because of driving, yellow lines so unable to read signage on way in.

If on the main sign in the car park it says park within the white lines, you did not actually park over a white line and disadvantage another driver or cause an obstruction.  It has all the "hallmarks of a parking space" and if they did not want motorists parking there they should have made it clearer.
  

Snakes_Belly

With regard to the contract between M & K Ltd and Excel.  NK is the sole director and owner of the company. MP is the company secretary.