CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW***Claim Dismissed***

[Nicky Boy]

10 hours ago, StoryBoard said:

Confirmation of Authority to manage the car park attached as Exhibit SW1.

Looks like toilet paper...

[FTMDave]

What on earth is this "Confirmation of Authority"?  It looks like a primary school child has produced it.

EDIT: see Nick beat me to it.  I prefer his description!

 

[FTMDave]

Your points.

4.  Yes, CEL are.  But CEL are not the people running the car park.  They haven't a hope in court.

5.  True - ABC Facilities Management Limited.

7.  The contract is with ABC Facilities Management Limited.

9.  Superb.  So they have lied in their WS.  This will seriously annoy the judge when you point it out.

BTW, ABC Parking Solutions Limited are a former name of ABC Facilities Management Limited.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The Confirmation of Authority is not a contract.

I am attempting to sort out the companies involved in this car park and perhaps some one from the legal team can confirm the situation.

ABC facilities Management Ltd started off as 

Ace Cleaning Solutions ltd in 20th February 2014

then became ABC Parking Solutions Ltd  28th June 2016

finally becoming ABC facilities management Ltd 19th November 2019.

The company was dissolved 11th March 2023 having been struck off.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The signature on the authority could be that  of Georgios Malekos who apparently owned 75% of the shares  January 1st 2017. Interestingly the Government up to date info does not list ABC as being one of the companies he owned. And you would have thought that even if is English may not have been that great he would at least have known the correct address of the car park. Nevertheless though he is not listed as a director he still appears to be the major shareholder but not the one with the biggest financial investment.

As he appears to have been in control since prior to your  event and still is , I am unsure of the legal situation with  the change of companies since he signed that authority.  Normally a change of company would necessitate a new authority . perhaps the contract will make things clearer.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

18 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

even if is English may not have been that great

19 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

perhaps the contract will make things clearer

Almost as funny as "is" LFI.

[lookinforinfo]

 

You can't bother me Nicky-I've been heckled by professionals.

[StoryBoard]

7 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

I am attempting to sort out the companies involved in this car park and perhaps some one from the legal team can confirm the situation.

Thanks for the digging, sorry i missed that link. I assume it was noted that there were two different companies on their WS photos. 'ABC Car Park Solutions Limited' and also 'ABC Parking Solutions Limited'. There is no record of one of these names so far in searches.

If the latest incarnation of the ABC company has been dissolved in March 2023, I assume this event hasn't got any relevance to the case? Eg who are CEL actually purporting to be working on behalf of now?

Would it help if we knew why ABC were struck off?

 

Apologies again, I know you are all working off scraps until next Tuesday, when I'll be able to upload their full WS.

[lookinforinfo]

ABC being dissolved [no I have no idea why ] does not affect your case just those who may be ticketed these days possibly.

The question is whether the certificate  apparently signed by Mr Malekos when it was ABC Parking Solutions still is valid under the new name of ABC facilities management when Mr Malekos was the major shareholder with both companies.

Also are the signs lawful when ABC was not a member of BPA at that time. By lawful I mean did the signs comply with PoFA so that there was a reasonable cause for the DVLA to send your data to CEL, or did they not have to comply with PoFA and still be able to provide a reasonable cause. Especially bearing in mind that though he was the major shareholder he wasn't a director and did that disqualify him from being able to sign that  legal document on behalf of ABC.

Of course we still have to see the contract ............................which may well be sufficient  on its own to damn their case regardless of .any other considerations.

 

[dx100uk]

post hidden.

HOW are you redacting your pages?

cause i can remove all yours in one click using a PDF editor.

you should be redacting each page as a JPG following our upload guide...

THEN converting to PDF and merging to one mass pdf using the sites we list.

dx

 

[FTMDave]

"We will be forced to incur further legal costs for preparation, attendance and travel, which we will seek to recover at the upcoming hearing".

Absolute, total lies.  Costs are capped at small claims.

Very kind of them to supply extra photos - all in the name of ABC Parking Solutions Ltd

Fingers crossed all goes well in Drtford.

[dx100uk]

page 12 photo has been doctored.

look at the text of the sign....

[lookinforinfo]

We don't know if ABC in whatever name they used have not signed a contract with CEL.  If they have then was it signed by Mr Malekos  or an actual director of the company. 

Might be worthwhile getting photos of the current signage to see if the ABC signs are still there. It won't affect your case in one sense but mentioning it if they  are still using ABC might call into question the car park's validity.

[Nicky Boy]

10 hours ago, dx100uk said:

page 12 photo has been doctored.

look at the text of the sign....

Something even more interesting dx is that all 8 of their photos have exactly the same timestamp on them!!

[dx100uk]

stock photos of the 'site' taken in 2019?

[Nicky Boy]

All photos are "timestamped" within the same minute, making the timestamp questionable, meaning when were the photos really taken??

[StoryBoard]

Claimants WS attached.

 

Claimant WS 18_03_24.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

The WS is very disappointing coming form a barrister albeit apparently not much experience with PoFA.

He of all people should recognise that being parked  is not the same as "car broken down". Jopson v Homeguard  cleared up what was parking and whilst broken down was not included that was only because the Judge did not exhaust all the possibilities of what defines the word parking.Moreover the OP was leaving well within the time limits until his car wouldn't start. 

The barrister of all people should know that the amount that can be claimed under PoFA is the amount on the sign. And he should also know that putting an unspecified amount on a sign does not commit a motorist to paying an extra specified amount. In any event the Beavis knocked on the head any extra charges.

The signs displayed on the WS are illegible.There is a case for arguing that this was deliberate to prevent the Judge from seeing that the signs are not in the name of CEL but instead they are either in the name of ABC Parking Solutions Ltd for which there is a letter of Authority from someone who is not a Director and other signs in the name of ABC Car Parking Solutions ltd who there appears to be no trace of.  The signage should be in the name of CEL to comply with PoFA. On top of that  the entrance sign is only  an offer to treat so does not offer any kind of contract.  

I notice that no contract appears to have been provided. Do not tell them since without it their case should be thrown out anyway.

[StoryBoard]

Thanks Lifi

The scanning in of the WS has reduced the legibility of the photos in hard copy but not much. They are still not clear on the hard copies.

What I have noticed is that the post #211 mentioned that the photo appeared doctored on p12. It looks reasonable on the photo and the scanning in appears to have altered this to some effect. It therefore looks reasonable and not doctored.

If I can, I will go back down to the car park next Tuesday and take photos of the existing signs. Very to the wire but might be able to demonstrate whether these are current.

I'm unclear what your last paragraph is stating. Do not tell them? At what point should this be raised?

I'm conscious that there are silent members viewing this thread whom I don't know and rightly provide no reference to identify them but hope that their intentions are good. If so, glad this is potentially helping their case/ knowledge.

I am getting some great comments back, thank you. However I'm assuming when I'm given the time to speak I do refer to their WS, picking up some issues for the judge to consider in his overall assessment? If so, a structured list would be helpful to reference from and the priority/importance of each one would be helpful if that could be provided. Otherwise I can try and pick it up from the posts in layman's terms?

ps How long has Scott Wilson been a barrister? As he is not attending the hearing a representative from the company or counsel will be attending instead.

[lookinforinfo]

Don't tell them that they have not provided a contract. Without it they cannot prove they have a case so the Judge should throw out the case.

You should have a copy of your WS  that you can refer to plus any other points that you can make though if they are not already in your WS or defence they may not be accepted.

[jk2054]

They will be sending an advocate, most likely LPC as with all parking claims.

Standard and nothing to worry about

[StoryBoard]

I've just realised that the pack they posted to me came with a one page cover letter and the witness statement. I collated these together when uploading. 1 page cover plus 36 pages of WS.

The court will not have been issued the cover note 1st page where the mentioning of incurring further costs was put. That, I believe, was just for me and not submitted to the Court by CEL. So assume this can't be referred to in Court? Post #210.

[lookinforinfo]

Why not? As long as it does not say in the heading "Without Prejudice" you are free to complain about extra costs which were specifically not allowed in the PE v  Beavis case.

[StoryBoard]

I went to the car park today to take photos of the signs to compare directly with those in the claimants WS. Although I do not know when these were changed, these have been changed following the date of the PCN. The position of the signs have not changed just the wording on them.

I do not think these photos are particularly relevant to my case other than to show that the signs have changed from photos included in both the Claimants and Defendants WS.

Items that may be of interest. Appears the wording on the signs have been tightened up.

1. Entrance signs now states a company 'Atlantis FM Limited'.

2. The charges for the car park have not changed but 1 hour has changed to 1.5 hours and 2 hours has changed to 2.5 hours.

3. 'Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival' has changed to 'Payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival on the premises'.

4. Civil Enforcement name and BPA logo now on the bottom of the signs. No other company name showing on signs.

 

I'd be interested to know if any of this is worthy of raising at the hearing. Thanks.

Butterfly walk photos taken 2nd April 2024.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for getting the new photos.The signs shown on their WS should be copies of the signs at the time you allegedly breached their terms.

Atlantis FM is a company where Mr Malekos is listed as a Director.. Too late for your case though so nothing altered as far as your case goes.

[Nicky Boy]

Not sure right now (away on hols), but I think their witness statement said something along the lines of "I confirm that the signage was present at the time of parking and still is"??