Got myself in a right flap! Gatwick South drop off & Trace Debt September 2026 update!

James_Poisson

The set up was all a shield put in place to protect the actual company in Japan that owned NCP since 2017 all acting until the dam burst in the shadows:

NCP was bought from Macquarie in August 2017 by Times24 UK Ltd

Times 24 UK Ltd is owned by the Japanese parking operator Park24 group 51% and the government-owned Development Bank of Japan 49%

What a convoluted mess.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82132447#Comment_82132447

No, I say not.

My advice remains the same as I gave you before. I think this is the wrong claimant.

The breakdown of the two businesses is:

• Company Number 00253240 belongs to National Car Parks Limited (NCP). This entity was first incorporated way back in 1931 and the above company number appeared on NTKs and signage, I believe.
  
• Times24 UK Limited is a completely different business, registered under company number 06631612.

This thread shows a NTK, which gives that first company number at the footer:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82129310#Comment_82129310

That is not the same company as Times24.

GrannyKate

I know you have said you don't have your original NTK but it all looks to be a right muddle as other cases show that NTKs and other letters were sent out (2023-4) headed National Car Parks (EUK) Ltd (Company no 06631612 but not shown) but with the details of the other company details and NCP 00253240 in the footer.

yarpsnehpets

It is worth noting that a clear identification of the creditor is a requirement of POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) if the operator is attempting to invoke keeper liability - ergo, a notice which contains more than one company identity does not meet the requirement of POFA.

However, in this case, if you scroll back to the start of this thread, the OP posted the first debt letter where the creditor is identified as 'National Car Parks (EUK) Ltd' which, in my opinion, makes it likely that Times24 could well be the legitimate creditor - as @Coupon-mad has already stated; the original NtK is the only document which can confirm the claimed identity of the creditor at the time of issue.

James_Poisson

As I see it the whole point is that these companies have sheltered themselves against being in the firing line by using holding companies to hold NCP at arms length. But when they are trying to pull in so called historical debts they think they can fiddle it through the parent company but they can't.

GrannyKate

In this case it may be worth sending a SAR (subject access request) to Times24 and ask for copies of all correspondence including the NTK so you can see if these communications merged one company name with another company number. Contact - privacy@times24.co.uk 

James_Poisson

If anyone can wade through this, it is what they did to start winding up NCP and what a wind up it is from page 9 onwards:

https://docs.publicnow.com/viewDoc?filename=47828%5CEXT%5CDC0F13B61E079C9934F0924D59510BC969400CA3_0BB3F88B0D4DC802F9FD1D67F1B5311197FBB9B3.PDF

GrannyKate

I read it and it is certainly hard to decide who was or is in charge of what! Beyond my pay grade to understand that level of complexity in company law.