Parking ticket from VCS and rejected appeal as keeper (not driver) - next steps?

Fruitcake

Did you ever find out who the landowner is? The contract is with a manging agent that says the agent has authority from the landowner, but (as usual) the scammers have not produced that authority from the landowner appointing the management company.

The contract also does not comply with the requirements of The Companies Act 2006, Section 44, because it has not been signed by two authorised signatories from each company. An authorised signatory has to be either a company director or company secretary. If a director signs then the second signatory can be a witness.
A manager is not an authorised signatory, so neither company has met the requirements of the above act.

In case number F1DP92KF heard at the Truro County Court on the 3rd of July this year, District Judge Simon Middleton said that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."
Your case is no different. I can't work out if the managing agent's name is J Laffan or JL Affan, but nobody of either name or similar was a director, secretary, or a person with significant control of Premier Estates Limited.

The close up of a sign is a stock image, not one of the alleged signs on site. You should challenge that.

Para 21 of their WS says a Privacy Notice was left on the windscreen, and in 22 it says "The Privacy Notice advised the driver that ..." 
Therefore by their own admission, a Notice to Driver was left on the car. This means they should not have applied to the DVLA for the keeper's details before day 28.This means the keeper cannot be held liable. Para 8 of the PoFA refers. 

88engine

Fruitcake said:

Did you ever find out who the landowner is? The contract is with a manging agent that says the agent has authority from the landowner, but (as usual) the scammers have not produced that authority from the landowner appointing the management company.

The contract also does not comply with the requirements of The Companies Act 2006, Section 44, because it has not been signed by two authorised signatories from each company. An authorised signatory has to be either a company director or company secretary. If a director signs then the second signatory can be a witness.
A manager is not an authorised signatory, so neither company has met the requirements of the above act.

In case number F1DP92KF heard at the Truro County Court on the 3rd of July this year, District Judge Simon Middleton said that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."
Your case is no different. I can't work out if the managing agent's name is J Laffan or JL Affan, but nobody of either name or similar was a director, secretary, or a person with significant control of Premier Estates Limited.

The close up of a sign is a stock image, not one of the alleged signs on site. You should challenge that.

Para 21 of their WS says a Privacy Notice was left on the windscreen, and in 22 it says "The Privacy Notice advised the driver that ..." 
Therefore by their own admission, a Notice to Driver was left on the car. This means they should not have applied to the DVLA for the keeper's details before day 28.This means the keeper cannot be held liable. Para 8 of the PoFA refers. 

Thanks Fruitcake. Landowner has been tricky to nail down and get my head around all the limited companies. Typically, the company I was visiting owns the building and land to the west, whereas I was parked to the east!

I will ensure I raise the signatory and contract aspect, as well as signage. The Privacy Notice and NTD relationship is something I went into in quite a bit of detail in my WS and Evidence, so hopefully that comes through. I agree, it is clearly a NTD (and/or a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate the legislation). The DVLA have been absolutely no help at all on that one. 

I've review their pack in a bit more detail this morning as well, in advance of emailing the court again. I've copied below what I'm sending to the court as the items they have deliberately excluded. 

Notice of pages edited and/or removed:

- Page 2 of 9 (paras 3-5) from my Defence (should be between pages 49 of 57 and 50 of 57 of the Claimant's PDF pack). 

- Page 4 of 9 (paras 10-13) from my Defence (should be between pages 50 of 57 and 51 of 57 of the Claimant's PDF pack). 

- Page 6 of 9 (paras 17-21) from my Defence (should be between pages 51 of 57 and 52 of 57 of the Claimant's PDF pack). 

- Page 8 of 9 (paras 25-27 and Statement of Truth) from my Defence (should be between pages 52 of 57 and 53 of 57 of the Claimant's PDF pack). 

- The Southampton judgement appended to my Defence has also been edited, with paras 7-13 and paras 20-24 missing. 

Umkomaas

Sounds like there's been some tomfackery going on.

nosferatu1001

Make sure you send that list to the court
State that, despite the Order instructing the claimant to file the combined bundle, which gave them no leave to decide on what documents from teh defendant could be excluded they have through either malice or incompetence failed to file the defendants documents in their entirety.
Below is a list of the errors made by the claimant that you have found so far. You consider this to be unreasonable behaviour, meeting the bar set by CPR27.14(2)(g), and ask that in the event you are awarded any costs of the claim that this behaviour by the claimant in defiance of the order of X date is taken into account. 
WOrd it like that. Be strong  in the words you use, because there is no excuse for this behaviour.
Also, their WS is likely a template, so have you found other examples and ripped it apart?

88engine

Thanks, nosferatu1001. That's all gone to the court - pleased I held off emailing earlier so I didn't miss that stronger wording. 

nosferatu1001 said:

Also, their WS is likely a template, so have you found other examples and ripped it apart?

I haven't. Are you aware of any I can find?

D_P_Dance

You will find dozens, perhaps hundreds, if you search this forum.

nosferatu1001

Yes! But like always you must do your own research. 

Always look for the legal,firm. They use templates. They're all very similar. 

88engine

Quick update and I will provide a summary of the hearing later or over the weekend, but...

CASE DISMISSED!

Thank you for all of your help. 

pould

88engine said:

Quick update and I will provide a summary of the hearing later or over the weekend, but...

CASE DISMISSED!

Thank you for all of your help. 

Yay!!!!!!

Le_Kirk

Well done!  Looking forward to the court report.