And so it ends - Bristol Airport IAS Appeal success

beamerguy

ihatetrump said:

@beamerguy

There's loads of companies that have subsidiary companies.

VCS was set up in 1990 and Excel in 1993 both by Renshaw-Smith and at that time he owned them both.

On 05/04/1998 (last day of the tax year) he sold the shares to Excel - probably not for a lot of money at that time and because it was the last day of the tax year, odds are it was a tax move of some sort.

But there is no doubt, Excel owns 100% of VCS.

These two have been followed for a long time especially by the Parking Prankster.
It does not matter who owns who, The fact is there is one entity issuing tickets and another responding to a SAR.  Apart from the same directors and address, they have determined they are separate

EXCEL Company number 02878122
VCS Company number 02498820

Fruitcake knows this and will take the appropiate action

ihatetrump

I'm probably banging my head against a brick wall with you on this one! - but I do fully respect your contribution here and you've helped me with your guidance on my own particular case - I'm a Chartered Accountant and I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Corporate structures - all part of the Corporate Veil. 

Yes they have separate company numbers, but one company (Excel) owns the other (VCS) and as such basically VCS is controlled fully by Excel. Moving out of the parking world as an example, many people think Tea Pigs is a quaint little artisan tea company - bo****ks - it's owned by Tetley which is part of Tata Global - a global multinational. Small companies do this all the time  - hiding behind their big brother parent.

In the case of Excel/VCS - all roads lead back to Renshaw Smith

@Castle - help me out here!!

beamerguy

ihatetrump said:

I'm probably banging my head against a brick wall with you on this one! - but I do fully respect your contribution here and you've helped me with your guidance on my own particular case - I'm a Chartered Accountant and I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to Corporate structures - all part of the Corporate Veil. 

Yes they have separate company numbers, but one company (Excel) owns the other (VCS) and as such basically VCS is controlled fully by Excel. Moving out of the parking world as an example, many people think Tea Pigs is a quaint little artisan tea company - bo****ks - it's owned by Tetley which is part of Tata Global - a global multinational. Small companies do this all the time  - hiding behind their big brother parent.

In the case of Excel/VCS - all roads lead back to Renshaw Smith

@Castle - help me out here!!

We know that, right the way back to the SRS clamping days

Most are aware that companies will hide behind each other but not in the parking industry

The so called contract relies on the signs.  If the signs say VCS the saga can only continue in the name of VCS.
EXCEL does not exist even though it may be run by Renshaw-smith's twin brother

NO, you are not "banging your head against a brick wall with me"   the parking industry has rules that goes well beyond accountants and real solicitors

Fruitcake

I know and understand all this, but I doubt my relative's MP does, or the landholder, or the landowner, or the ICO; at least not initially.

It won't stop me making the complaints on behalf of my relative to all of the above, and the DVLA, and the DVLA KADOE department, and the IPC, and Excel, and VCS, nor will it stop me sending an SAR to the two companies. If it causes SRS and his merry persons even the slightest bit of irritation, or annoyance, or time, or money, then I will be satisfied.

If it gets to court I will bring it up and let a judge decide what she/he thinks.

Fruitcake

Snakes_Belly said:

FrankCannon said:

Does anybody know why they operate in this way ? Is it some kind of tax dodge ?

The Parking Prankster has written on his blog about this. It has something to do with the fact that originally Excel was with the BPA.  Popla  were allowing more appeals. VCS were with the IPC and allowing fewer appeals. 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/excel-parking-services-ltd-try-one-two.html

They are separate entities and the defining case is the Salomon case.

Do you have the details of the Salomon case please, such as the case number and court? This is what sometimes lets us down when we can say, such and such happened in court, and the judge said ... but without a claim number etcetera it is not always of much use.

Snakes_Belly

"Do you have the details of the Salomon case please, such as the case number and court? This is what sometimes lets us down when we can say, such and such happened in court, and the judge said ... but without a claim number etcetera it is not always of much use."

The Salomon case is an old case but is still relevant today. A judge should understand it.

"The landmark case of Salomon v A. Salomon and Company [1897] A.C. 22 saw the House of Lords firmly uphold the principle of separate corporate personality which has been the starting point for any discussion on the topic ever since. ... He incorporated a company called A Salomon and Co Ltd to which he sold his business."

This case defined a company as a separate entitity. A director/shareholder of the company cannot be held personally liable for the debts of the company unless they have signed personal guarantees. SRS may own Excel and VCS however if either of those companies borrow from a bank SRS is not liable for those debts unless he has signed personal guarantees. The case defines that by the incorporation it makes the company a separate entity irrespective of who owns the shares of the company. 

Subsidiaries operate as entirely separate legal entities from their parent company.

For accounting purposes they may form part of a consolidated balance sheet but they are still separate legal entities. 

If VCS was to borrow from a lender the liability for the debt would be with VCS unless a guarantee had been taken. The lender could not go to Excel if VCS defaulted. Naturally this is unlikely to happen as security would have been taken. An unsecured creditor would not be able to go to Excel for the debts of VCS.  

As a separate legal entity they can ring fence any losses that a subsidiary company may make. 

If SRS was to start a new project he may set up a new company for this purpose so if it incurred losses those losses would not be offset against Excel's profit. The unsecured creditors would be the ones that would lose out.

https://hjsolicitors.co.uk/article/subsidiaries/#section-1

The Salomon case is most relevant in banking and finance however it does define a company as a separate legal entity.

beamerguy

Good clarification Madam Snake

For those who remember ...... BWLegal / Britannia parking

On the same day in Reading and Oxford the cases were dismissed due to the wrong entity

OXFORD CASE PST # 87
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76747116#Comment_76747116"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008854/britania-parking-pcn-bournemouth&highlight=icicle&page=3" title="Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008854/britania-parking-pcn-bournemouth&highlight=icicle&page=3">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008854/britania-parking-pcn-bournemouth&highlight=icicle&page=3

Snakes_Belly

If VCS was to go into liquidation and owed money to the company that serviced it's vans the company are unlikely to receive any money from VCS as an unsecured trade creditor. They would not be able to sue Excel for the outstanding amount as Excel is a separate entity from VCS.



 

Jenni_D

Separate legal entities = no right to share personal data between the companies, yes? (Or, if they do this - i.e. use Excel for administration purposes - they need to make this clear on their signage).

Snakes_Belly

https://www.legalcheek.com/2021/07/8-legal-cases-that-shaped-history-retold-on-tiktok/

Saloman is included in this list.