Fluttering ticket parking fine

ParkingScum

Cancel that last bit theres no mention of the contract passing to new owners Hanro Ltd so maybe a new contract should have been drawn up?

Mikeh2001

ParkingScum said:

Cancel that last bit theres no mention of the contract passing to new owners Hanro Ltd so maybe a new contract should have been drawn up?

Companies house suggests that Hanro took "Ownership Of Shares 75 To 100 Percent" in Cousins properties in 2016.

Castle

ParkingScum said:

Cancel that last bit theres no mention of the contract passing to new owners Hanro Ltd so maybe a new contract should have been drawn up?

It should have been; given, that the old contract never existed as Cousins Properties were not a party to it. 

ParkingScum

Also why is VCS’s address blacked out? Their address is on all correspondence. If their address is out of date does that affect the contract?

Castle

KeithP said:

Castle said:

According to Companies House, Cousins Property Ltd has never existed.

But we have now seen the Land Registry detail.

That shows the suspect company name to be Cousins Properties Ltd. which does exist on Companies House records - company number 00563079.

I don't know how significant that discrepancy is - property versus properties.

Very; because, anybody could now set up a company called "Cousins Property Ltd" since that no name hasn't been taken.

ParkingScum

So the name is wrong i.e property instead of properties. Does that void a contract? And if Hanro bought Cousins do they need a new contract. My friend in urban design and surveying seemed to thing these things just passed on to new owners.

Coupon-mad

The D should raise it all. Up to the Judge.

ParkingScum

The D will. Thanks. 

Fruitcake

I agree.

As I said before, anything you aver has to be considered by the judge, so put in every single point that has been mentioned here. It's then up VCS to refute it, and they have to refute every single point you bring up, but you only need to win on one. The more points you include, the harder it is for VCS to refute.

I don't know if it would be better to mention that Hanro bought shares in a company with a similar name to Cousins Property Ltd, or just state that the company named on the contract never existed, so the contract was never valid. I think I would go with the latter. 
Mentioning Hanro might cause VCS to issue a supplementary WS showing Hanro as the landowner and having bought the majority of shares in a company with a similar name. If they don't realise until the hearing, then it would be too late and unfair to introduce new evidence, even if the hired gun representing VCS asked for a recess to make a call to their lords and masters.

As for the contract period, it specifically states an initial 36 month period, and specifically states an immediate rollover of another 36 months. There is no other mention of a further rollover. The contract is therefore quite specific. It ran for 72 months then ended. If it rolled over, then there would either have been a clause to state the same in the initial contract provided as evidence and signed under a statement of truth, which there is not, or a new contract would have been signed, which there is not.

If VCS do mention Hanro as being the current landowner, then you should be stating that there should be a contract between VCS and Habro. The fact that no such contract has been produced again leads the man on the Clapham omnibus to believe on the balance of probabilities that no such contract exists.

I'll have a look at the DVLA KADOE contract soonly, but does it not state that a PPC must have a landowner contract in place before they can operate, or is that only the BPA?

Castle

ParkingScum said:

So the name is wrong i.e property instead of properties. Does that void a contract? And if Hanro bought Cousins do they need a new contract. My friend in urban design and surveying seemed to thing these things just passed on to new owners.

Hanro didn't buy the company in 2014, they bought the land/car park, and according to para 6.4, if the land is sold, the client has to tell VCS; there's no mention of the new landowner being subject to the "contract".