Excel Parking Claim Form - Defence for Review

Fruitcake

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

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

How can this be if the contract wasn't signed until three months later?


As for the comment about clamping, this is from the SIA website.

Why are you still licensing vehicle immobilisers when the Government has banned wheel clamping?

The SIA only regulates vehicle immobilising in Northern Ireland as it is illegal in England, Wales and Scotland. Vehicle Immobilising remains a legitimate business in Northern Ireland.

Castle

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

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

It should be EPISO 3 Tyre Property Ltd.

Fiortdunlop2020

Hi @ Castle apologies my mistake  I have checked on Companies house and I can find then and the have the same Register Office Address as that in the Memo from the Savills Property Manager, so can only assume a subsidiary (child) company of Savills.
@ Fruitcake must be a retrospective contract i do not know how that legally stands up? re the vehicle immobilising should I flag this to Judge on day of Hearing.
Thanks

nosferatu1001

It isnt retrospective tho.
It was valid after the date of the signs. At the time the signs were tehre, they had no authority. Done. 

Castle

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

Hi @ Castle apologies my mistake  I have checked on Companies house and I can find then and the have the same Register Office Address as that in the Memo from the Savills Property Manager, so can only assume a subsidiary (child) company of Savills.
@ Fruitcake must be a retrospective contract i do not know how that legally stands up? re the vehicle immobilising should I flag this to Judge on day of Hearing.
Thanks

Yes; EPISO 3 Tyre Property Ltd does exist, (Company Number: 03542905); but, the "contract" has been signed on behalf of EPISO 3 Tyre Properties Ltd, a company that doesn't exist.

Coupon-mad

Castle is making a very valid point and you keep missing it!  This is not YOUR mistake, it's a mistake in the so called landowner contract to name a company that doesn't exist at Companies House.

Fiortdunlop2020

Ok so get Castle's point now (apologies for slow uptake) so this can be flagged on day of hearing. Does this throw the materiality of the contract into question? 
Re the date when contract signed is immaterial due to: 1) because of aforementioned and 2) PCN was issued 24th September

nosferatu1001

Youre still not getting it!
The company taking you to court does not have a contract with the landholder
The contract is in the name of a different entity to the one that owns the land. So the one taking you to court has no authority to operate there at all because the company named is not the landholder. 
In addition, they cant even claim the company mentioned is a sister company, because a second problem - that company DOES NOT exist. The claimant has signed a contract with an entity that doesnt exist. It does nothing for them

ANOTHER issue - the signs were supposed put up months before the contract - with an entity that doesnt exist - was signed. Suggests the contract is bogus to me. 

Fiortdunlop2020

Fruitcake said:

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.

Hi
So checked DVLA paperwork and the Date of Request for Keepers details is both day after the event. Note as stated no Privacy Noticed affixed for first incident (albeit Excels WS states there was). There was a PN affixed to windscreen for second incident. NtK states posted 27th Sep 3 days after incident (24th Sep) and 24th Oct 2 days after second incident (22nd Oct).
Thanks

Fiortdunlop2020

Umkomaas said:

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?

Morning @ Umkomaas I emailed Emma Taylor from Savillis who was on holiday at the time, but returned 17th Aug and I have not had a response to date, so assume I will not hear now.

@ All, Court is tomorrow so I will update you all with outcome. Thank you for everyones support to date, it truly has been appreciated. 

Thanks