Excel Parking Claim Form - Defence for Review

Fruitcake

With regard to the scammer's WS: -

Paras 21 and 22 refer to a card left on the windscreen to warn the driver a PCN may be on its way to the keeper. The DVLA banned this type of card. It is in effect a NTD so presumably the scammers applied for keeper data too soon before 28 days as prescribed by the PoFA para 8. This is opposite to the scammers claim that para 9 sub para 2 applies in para 43 of their WS.
Para 57 says the scammers applied for keeper data from the DVLA during the relevant period, but this is not true since a NTD was left so they applied too early.
If that is the case then a complaint should be made to the DVLA.

In the scammers WS paras 36 to 39 says they can claim £160, but the contract quite clearly says £100 with no mention of an additional £60.

In their para 47 they agree that the charge should be £100.


Now to the "contract".

Nowhere does the landowner authorise court claims to be issued against motorists.

As already mentioned, under PCN Charges applicable to this property, the amount quoted is £100, not £160, nor £100 plus additional charges/costs.

The contract fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore is not a valid contract.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

"44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company."

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

Emma Taylor was not an authorised signatory of the landowner according to the above act because she was neither a director nor company secretary, and therefore she was not in a position to sign a contract on the landowner's behalf.

In court case number F1DP92KF at Truro County Court on 3/7/20, District Judge Middleton said the following: -
"... Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

This is identical to your case.


Right, time for beddy byes. Someone in our house has got a wedding anniversary today. 

Fiortdunlop2020

Good morning Fruitcake thanks for taking time to review and feedback very much appreciated. It was myself that redacted the document, please find attached copy as requested.
I will take time to review today and respond back but specifically regard Para 21 & 22 No Privacy Notice was affixed to windscreen only the second claim. It is photographed in second claim but not in first. But understand you point. I believe from memory (haven't got paperwork with me at moment from DVLA response to my SAR that Excel applied on the day of the alleged day the PCN was incurred (for both claims)
Also the Section Permit Scheme Para 16 to 20 is of no bearing as my organisation did not issue permits and the car park was a token based carpark whereby users paid for time in carpark. The carpark was available for use for non office staff as it had a gym, food eateries and bike shop.
Thanks again and will review further.

Fruitcake

Okay, rather than start again I will edit my previous post accordingly.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

Now to the "contract".

Nowhere does the landowner authorise court claims to be issued against motorists.

As already mentioned, under PCN Charges applicable to this property, the amount quoted is £100, not £160, nor £100 plus additional charges/costs.

Agreed, but there's more:-
1) The "contract" was apparently signed on 11th July 2019 but the photos of the signs are dated 14th May 2019; some 8 weeks before.
2) Savills (UK) ltd claim to be signing on behalf of EPISO 3 Tyre Properties Ltd; but there is no such company of that name listed at Companies House..

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi Castle when I paid for parking on my bank statements it was charged to EPISO 3 Tyre Properties Ltd
Thanks

Fiortdunlop2020

Apologies Fruitcake forgot to say best wishes for the Wedding anniversary and have a lovely day

Fruitcake

I can't see a start or finish date for the contract, so although the signatures are dated, you should put the scammers to strict proof that the contract was actually in force at the time of the alleged event.

Umkomaas

The Excel contract with Savills references 'Clamping' which became illegal in most instances in 2012. It would be helpful to know the date of that contract. If it's as old as pre-2012, Excel would be subject to BPA rules, their Code of Practice requiring written authority for the PPC to pursue cases through the civil court - that contract provides no such authority. 

It might be worth a quick email to Savills (who have been generally quite helpful with parking issues) to ask whether, given that their contract with Excel shows no authority to pursue charges through the civil courts, they have given specific authority to them to sue you?

As a side note to regulars - have you noticed that the IPC AOS list no longer shows the date each PPC signed up to the IPC?  I wonder why?

Fiortdunlop2020

The parking enforcement went live 12th April 2019 as per the Memo from Savills to Fort Dunlop Tenants. 

Umkomaas

I'd nonetheless ask them the question:

It might be worth a quick email to Savills (who have been generally quite helpful with parking issues) to ask whether, given that their contract with Excel shows no authority to pursue charges through the civil courts, they have given specific authority to them to sue you?