IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Premier Park - Planet Ice, Peterborough
Options
Comments
-
There was a recent case where a judge held that the contract was not valid as it wasn't properly validated. He referred to section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 which says(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.
(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a)by two authorised signatories, or
(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a)every director of the company, and
(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.
(4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44
Although there appears to be a signature by a director (they only have one) it is not witnessed and so does not meet s44.
The redactions should be challenged too as they can't be checked for key phrases and as such the contract should not be accepted as evidence and your case should be thrown out - if POPLA were truly independent.0 -
Excellent - thank you for the advice. I'll certainly be adding this to my rebuttal.0
-
According to the latest accounts filed for 31st December 2016, Planet Ice Peterborough Ltd doesn't own any property, so they are unlikely to be the Landowner:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07868983/filing-history
On a related note; I couldn't find any planning applications for the Cameras and Poles and more importantly, no advertising consent for the signs. (You may wish to contact the council and get confirmation).0 -
Thank you Castle. Much appreciated. You've confirmed a nagging thought i had about the landowner - i'm sure i have a record somewhere of who it actually is?
However, could Planet Ice (Peterborough) not be determined as having had authority to sign on behalf of the landowner? Part 1.4 of their agreement states "The client confirms that they are either the registered land owner of the location(s) included in this agreement or authorised by the landowner to legally enter into this agreement."
Nevertheless, I'll add into the rebuttal that they have not proven land owner's assignment of rights as the contract is not with the landowner (and there is no proof of authorisation to do so).0 -
Ace,
I'm just at the first stage of an appeal with Premier Parking at Solihull Icerink with a situation pretty identical to yours. I've had the two appeal rejection emails from PP come through today.
Looking forward to see how you get on.0 -
No worries Fatlab. I'll try to make sure all aspects of my appeal are recorded here. I have seven days to respond to the evidence pack, and then it'll be however long it takes POPLA to make a decision after that.0
-
I've done a bit of digging, and Castle is correct in that the freeholder of the Planet Ice site in Peterborough is Nice Leisure Ltd, not Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. It's not clear, but i assume the latter sold to the former (on 5th January, 2016)? Either way, both companies are owned by the same chap (Michael Petrouis, who appears to own all Planet Ice sites through a number of different companies), so i guess some kind of internal transfer took place.
However, i hope that the fact the contract was created through PI (P'boro), while not being the landowner, is the relevant fact with respect to the BPA CoP and my appeal.
In the Solihull case, it appears that Silver Blades Ice Rink Company (Solihull) Ltd are running the site, but you'd have to check with the Land Registry to see who owns the freehold. It might be Nice Leisure again?0 -
Nice Leisure Ltd is actually owned by Nice Leisure Holdings Ltd; which in turn is owned by Michael & Kay Petrouis.I've done a bit of digging, and Castle is correct in that the freeholder of the Planet Ice site in Peterborough is Nice Leisure Ltd, not Planet Ice (Peterborough) Ltd. It's not clear, but i assume the latter sold to the former (on 5th January, 2016)? Either way, both companies are owned by the same chap (Michael Petrouis, who appears to own all Planet Ice sites through a number of different companies), so i guess some kind of internal transfer took place.
(The bank/lender took a fixed charge over the property on 5th Jan 2016):-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05340187/charges/KmhqpFiL0q4GEI2Q6wQbBKgQMdA0 -
A couple of questions i hope someone can answer:
1) What is the best method of providing comments to an operator's evidence pack? I don't seem to be able to do anything through POPLA's website - in my 'track appeals' page, the status is still showing as "In progress" on stage 2? I.e. there's nothing to click to create an upload?
Should i just create a PDF of comments and email it (with the same subject line ID number) to the info@popla.co.uk address that sent me the EP? As an aside, is it best to just refer into the EP by paragraph number, or should i duplicate it and mark-up my comments inline?
2) It seems that recently the PoFA 2012 section 4 defence of incorrect wording in the timescale statement sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't (yes, i saw post #15). I'd like to reference at least a couple of the wins in my comments - just to point out appeals that have previously been allowed on the same fact. Is it enough to quote the wording used, or do i need to state the corresponding POPLA codes (which i'll request from the 'winners' separately)?0 -
Oh, one other thing. My appeal included photos taken at the same time of night as stated on the PCN. I recalled reading in one thread that such photos shouldn't include a flash/lights in order to capture the correct lighting conditions. I've just read this from the evidence pack:
----
As the Appellant has stated in his appeal to POPLA, the vehicle entered the site 1 hour and 41 minutes after sunset occurred, therefore the Driver would have had the vehicle headlights on. It is clear to see the Appellant’s photographs have either been captured on foot or within a vehicle without the headlights on. Therefore, this is not a clear representation of the condition of the signage visible when motorists enter the site at night.
----
Does anyone have a decent response to this?
(The EP contained only daytime photos.)
I want to use a response along the lines of their entrance sign being too high up to fully catch the light from car headlamps, but i don't know if this is enough? It's only a small 'P' sign - looks just like a standard "Car Park" sign, such as you might find anywhere, if you ask me?
Or is their statement irrelevant - should the sign be illuminated anyway?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards