Locating the Landowner of a PPC managed site

helmsleyhitter

I received the following explanation today from Bradford Council on why they could not supply me the landowner details for Manor Row car park in Bradford. One problem is that when I try Land Registry it can't supply details either so I am stuck. Any ideas?
Not sure the 'Internal Review' will do much although I will try it and I could explain the context (unregulated parking company issuing unfair fees).

>>

My Question

Please could you tell me the landowner / rate payer for the Manor Row car park address 2-3 Grammar School St, Bradford BD1 4QD. Thank you

 

The Council’s response is set out below:

 

The Council does hold information on the name of the landowner/ratepayer for the Manor Row car park address 2-3 Grammar School St, Bradford BD1 4QD but it is not disclosing this. I can, however, confirm that the Council is not the landowner. Under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you. The information on the name of the landowner is available to you by making a search of the Land Registry. I would direct you to HM Land Registry.

 

The Council does hold the name of the ratepayer however after considering the matter the Council has determined that releasing the name of the ratepayer falls under the exemption detailed in Sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as detailed below as it deems that its disclosure would, or be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

 

Bradford Council believes that disclosing this information would release information into the public domain that can be used, along with other information that is available, to impersonate a business and thus prejudice the Council’s ability to prevent and detect fraudulent activity. This was something which was of particular concern during the height of the pandemic and remains of concern due to the availability of reliefs to businesses affected by Covid-19, the expected provision of support to businesses which are restricted from applying for a reduction in their rateable value due to a material change in circumstances and the ability to generate credits utilising a combination of the information in total that is available in the public domain. The identification of the ratepayer would allow fraudsters to either create email addresses which would appear to come from the business concerned (since such information is available publicly for many businesses) such that it would easily be mistaken for the true address or to spoof the email address so that a communication appeared to come from the true address. Some accounts will have a credit remaining on the account which is due to the ratepayer. Such credits would be vulnerable to being paid out to someone impersonating the ratepayer should they have the email address held by the Council for that ratepayer or one extremely similar.

 

Public interest Test

 

In applying the public interest test consideration has been given to the fact that there are public interest benefits in disclosing the requested information in terms of openness and transparency. However, the Council believes there are overriding public interest considerations in withholding the information in view of the potential for fraudulent activity relating to public funds and also so that the Council is able to prevent and detect any fraudulent activity to ensure that limited public money is spent appropriately (whether in terms of that which is spent on administration, provided in the form of reliefs or some other manner). The Council has weighed up the public interest considerations and has decided the public interest in withholding the information you have requested outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

 

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, if you are not satisfied with the reply to your request you can ask for an internal review.

>>
>>

PolePosition2

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th February, you have until Monday 10th March 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

I submitted my defence by email on 19th March and received the following response

"Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days"

My worry though Keith P is that on Monday 24th is the deadline for the defence and if it's taking 10 days for a response from Claim Response Team and they don't respond untill after the MCOL defence deadline of Mon 24th could it not be seen by the Claimant that I've not filed a defence in time?

Would you suggest I call the Claims response team on Monday first thing or  not?

I put URGENT - DEFENCE in the title along with claim number but still have not received a response from them other than the auto response received immediately after emailing my defence.

I also informed DCBL solicitor that a defence had been submitted on 19th March and included the auto response from Claims response Team in the email.

Coupon-mad

Relax.

Your defence is acknowledged so it's filed.

PolePosition2

Coupon I'm getting rather nervous lol

Coupon-mad

Relax!  

PolePosition2

Coupon-mad how does the response from Claims Response Team appear 

Is it via MCOL or is the response via email.

As previously posted I emailed my defence on 19th March and received the auto response saying,

"Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days"

At present all that exists on MCOL is that AOS was served but presently nothing showing for my defence which I submitted on 19th March.

The deadline date for defence was Mon 24th March.

It's now 27th March and no response yet from Claims responses Team.

10 days will have elapsed by this Saturday 29th.

If I don't hear anything by next Monday should I be worried?

Coupon-mad

No.            

PolePosition2

Just an update on my submitted email defence sent 19th March 2025.

Still no response from CNBC.

There email response times were as much as 23 days so once this had elapsed I called them and was told to resubmit the defence and put on the subject line Unprocessed defence along with my claim number and told to wait a further two weeks.

It's about 28 working days and still no response.

Both my defences received their instant auto response.

In the meantime they say they have placed a "bar" on the claim which hopefully will prevent the claimant as applying for Judgement by default.

Their response times are ridiculous 

ChirpyChicken

PolePosition2 said:

Just an update on my submitted email defence sent 19th March 2025.

Still no response from CNBC.

There email response times were as much as 23 days so once this had elapsed I called them and was told to resubmit the defence and put on the subject line Unprocessed defence along with my claim number and told to wait a further two weeks.

It's about 28 working days and still no response.

Both my defences received their instant auto response.

In the meantime they say they have placed a "bar" on the claim which hopefully will prevent the claimant as applying for Judgement by default.

Their response times are ridiculous 

All i will say is get used to it. 

PolePosition2

If this delay and response times for CNBC are normal then their weekly response times update is pointless when their auto response email says 10 days for them to respond, their weekly performance response times say anything between 18 - 23 days and then after that they ask you to resend your defence to give them another 2 weeks to respond.

If this is normal then I'll stop worrying just don't want the claimant to think I've not made my defence on time and attempt to get judgement by the back door