Vehicle Control Services PCN in a residential car park

D_P_Dance

So, please post this invalid document in its entirety

MoneySavingPest

Thanks for all the comments. It seems I am being unduly cautious.

For the benefit of other Newbies: since I was worried about it, I looked more closely at the Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 31.22 states:

31.22

(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where –

(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public;

(b) the court gives permission; or

(c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.22

Under 31.22, if the document is referred to in a public hearing, it can be used for other purposes.

However, Rule 31.22 does not apply to the Small Claims Track, so it seems there is no obligation on the recipient in small claims cases to limit the use of documents disclosed to him or her. In any case, the document will shortly be made public in a Court hearing, and that point (even if Rule 31.22 did apply), making it public would be OK.

So I think given the general principle of open justice and the CPR (and the fact I have not had any confidentiality obligations in connection with any of the documents flagged to me by anyone) I can disclose unredacted documents on this forum.

nosferatu1001

Of course you can.
CPR31.1 doesnt apply at all on SCT, so nothing you have is "disclosed" to yuo in the meaning of the term.

MoneySavingPest

Complete landowner authority attached.

The most obvious defect is that VCS have not signed it (although I am not sure if a judge would knock it out solely on that basis).  

Coupon-mad

Yes, that sums it up.  We are advising you about your case, after all.

Snakes_Belly

Is the contract out of date or is it a roll over contract?  Looks like it expired in February 2019 before the contravention.

MoneySavingPest

Snakes_Belly said:

Is the contract out of date or is it a roll over contract? 

Rollover, per Clause 6.5.

nosferatu1001

Peerless Properties Ltd - actually the landowner? Yes or No
3.1 - sheesh. Stupid company signing that. VCS can make the signs say whatever they like...
Nothing authorises them to offer parking contracts in their own name, they are merely a non-exclusive occupier. 

Castle

IMO-the contract is actually supposed to be between VCS and Rewley Park Management Ltd but they have missed off the "Ltd"'; so in fact they have failed to identify the other party even if it was signed.

(Companies House shows Peerless Properties Ltd to be a dormant company!)

nosferatu1001

Were they dormant when this contract was allegedly signed?
If so then they cannot have entered into any contracts of any form; the CARE OF that it was signed under is impossible to fulfil.