PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TCP Naughties
Atilla
post Fri, 28 Dec 2012 - 13:26
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 452
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Member No.: 17,766



As some of you will know, i've been let down badly in recent weeks by various PPCs regarding 'tickets' but that i was hopeful of one from TCP.
See
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=763211

Well, yesterday they kindly obliged by sending me a letter. A very interesting one it is too.
This in a new format to their previous ones but perhaps those of you with an eye for detail will spot the major problem.




DVLA will have to wiggle pretty damn good to get out of this one. And i suspect ICO will be wanting a word with them too. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Atilla: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 - 19:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
14 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (140 - 159)
Advertisement
post Fri, 28 Dec 2012 - 13:26
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Billme
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 08:21
Post #141


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3 May 2011
Member No.: 46,332



Great news, has made my day. New kids on the block have had their arses well and truly kicked. Trip to Asda, Kings Heath to make leisurely use of the ANPR controlled car park.

Since TCP's NTO received early Nov 2012 I've yet to here from them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 08:29
Post #142


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,335
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Atilla @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 08:04) *
asked for clarification that the DVLA require the signs to state Smart Parking Ltd, t/a Town and City Parking.

See my post #122 - I had my crystal ball out...



--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RA1
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 08:37
Post #143


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 8 Nov 2011
Member No.: 50,925



Just to be clear, for us less legally minded folks:

1) What was the reason(s) for the ban, was it purely down to the renaming fiasco?

2) Although they are only banned from the 24th Jan, would this now form a cast iron defence to any tickets issued prior to 24th Jan, but after the name change date. What date would this be.

3) Should TCP be refunding all monies received through ticketing during this period?

Ta

And congrats to all those who made this happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jampott
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 09:57
Post #144


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 245
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,055



I, too, have received confirmation:

Dear Mr xxxxx

Thank you for drawing this to our attention.

You are correct in saying that once Town and City Parking Limited was registered in December that name should not be used on the signage in car parks operated by Smart Parking Limited. They can however still use Town and City Parking as a trading name.

On 25 January 2012 we suspended access by Smart Parking Ltd to DVLA data until they have made the necessary changes. There is not a fixed or minimum term for this suspension.

Following our discussions with relevant parties we are content that this was not a deliberate attempt by the company to mislead or defraud.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 10:04
Post #145


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,819
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



So they are only banned until they fix the signs and paperwork.

I'll keep an eye on this, my local ASDA still says T & C Ltd on the signs.

How will the DVLA know when this exercise is complete? Presumably the BPA or Smart will just lie about it, sorry, report the completion of their changeover to them.

By the way, well done to jampott and atilla on this, you've shown a fair amount of persistence and effort here.



--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jampott
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 10:05
Post #146


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 245
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Member No.: 5,055



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 10:04) *
So they are only banned until they fix the signs and paperwork.

I'll keep an eye on this, my local ASDA still says T & C Ltd on the signs.

How will the DVLA know when this exercise is complete? Presumably the BPA or Smart will just lie about it, sorry, report the completion of their changeover to them.

By the way, well done to jampott and atilla on this, you've shown a fair amount of persistence and effort here.


I've thanked Mike and asked him how I'll know when their access resumes.

I've also advised Companies House that the DVLA have taken action (they wouldn't) so at least there is a "result" smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 10:11
Post #147


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



The name change was 5th December and in my view is a cast iron defence for tickets from that date and until the sign in the relevant car park is changed.

I can't see how a driver could recover a sum already paid
It's got shades of Lewis v Avery and Phillips v Brooks

The driver intended to form the contract with the company named on the sign

Excellent work, by the way

What's the best way to rub it home - local newspapers ?

This post has been edited by Gan: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 10:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 12:36
Post #148


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,769
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



As this PPC "manages" most ASDA car parks, then it's going to be a very large task to modify or change all the signs, as there are at least six (at a guess) in each location. If they are just going down the route of modifying signs with sticky tape then it's probably worth buying shares in a tape manufacturer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ossian
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 13:06
Post #149


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 4 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,086



QUOTE (DBC @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 12:36) *
As this PPC "manages" most ASDA car parks, then it's going to be a very large task to modify or change all the signs, as there are at least six (at a guess) in each location. If they are just going down the route of modifying signs with sticky tape then it's probably worth buying shares in a tape manufacturer.

If the signs have a "correction" stuck on and that is removed (by some unknown party), what is the position regarding any tickets?
Similarly, could TCP t/a Whatever claim that all the signs had been made compliant but the changes had been reversed without their knowledge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 13:44
Post #150


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,769
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



Some TCP signs already have correction tape on them. This is after they had to change "penalty" to "parking". If they do go down the tape route, thoise signs will look a right mess. Not the best image they would wan't to convey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:00
Post #151


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,380
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (RA1 @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 08:37) *
Just to be clear, for us less legally minded folks:

1) What was the reason(s) for the ban, was it purely down to the renaming fiasco?

That's the main reason as far as it stands. Wrong name. Actually I can't even see Smart are on the BPA Member list so that would an interesting situation. That would be a real faux pas. Using data collected by a different, non operating company, for itself when it has no independent right of access by virtue of BPA membership.
I guess the ICO would be very interested in taking that up and perhaps slapping them with a fine.

QUOTE
2) Although they are only banned from the 24th Jan, would this now form a cast iron defence to any tickets issued prior to 24th Jan, but after the name change date. What date would this be.

It's as good a defence as you'll ever need. TCP don't exist.

QUOTE
3) Should TCP be refunding all monies received through ticketing during this period?

It would be nice, and in fact if anyone made a go at that I expect that they would win a court case for reimbursement. However, since the company is no longer in existence it may prove difficult to get anything. The only exception would be if Smart bought out TCP with all assets and liabilities. The responsibility would then be passed to Smart.
I wonder too; I know my own Company Liability Insurance covers any liabilities that may be proven after the company has closed. Think of the liabilities extended to insurance companies in respect of the asbestosis cases for companies no longer trading.
Might be worth a shot.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:01


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Half_way
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:31
Post #152


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,365



Could ASDA or that asda store be liable in someway to refund customers?

This post has been edited by Half_way: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:34
Post #153


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,769
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



QUOTE (Half_way @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:31) *
Could ASDA or that asda store be liable in someway to refund customers?

Might be. You would have to get past their "the car parks are owned by the council and looked after by TCP" answer which they give out when you try and complain to ASDA. It took me three emails to get them to admit they do actually own the car parks.

This post has been edited by DBC: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 14:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 16:41
Post #154


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,380
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



It might be worth doing a MCOL citing Asda as complicit in this.
It'll cost a few quid but that would be reclaimed in the event of a win. Given that Asda would have failed in a duty of care to their customers by allowing a non trading company to operate on their land would be a killer I guess. The local rags would also pick up on this and the word would spread to others who've had tickets.

I think I'd really treat myself and spend a few quid to try this avenue.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dp7
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 17:34
Post #155


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 750
Joined: 1 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,435



Smart/TCP must be keeping their heads down. Used the same car park (free) again today but no ticket again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 17:51
Post #156


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



3) Should TCP be refunding all monies received through ticketing during this period?
It would be nice, and in fact if anyone made a go at that I expect that they would win a court case for reimbursement. However, since the company is no longer in existence it may prove difficult to get anything. The only exception would be if Smart bought out TCP with all assets and liabilities. The responsibility would then be passed to Smart.
I wonder too; I know my own Company Liability Insurance covers any liabilities that may be proven after the company has closed. Think of the liabilities extended to insurance companies in respect of the asbestosis cases for companies no longer trading.
Might be worth a shot.


TCP Ltd hasn't closed

TCP Ltd Version 1 has become Smart Parking Ltd but has to wait until signs have been updated before it can operate in the car park and legally ask for payment

TCP Ltd Version 2 has existed since December and has collected the payments by pretending to be TCP Ltd version 1
Smart Parking Ltd has been sending the letters under their old name and directing the payments to version 2

Interesting

It suggests that if payment was made as the result of a ticket, TCP Ltd version 2 is responsible because they had no contract with Asda
If it was made as the result of a letter, TCP Ltd version 1 (alias Smart Parking Ltd) is responsible because they didn't have a sign

Either way, couldn't ASDA be liable using the principal of agency by estoppel in permitting T&C Ltd in any guise to operate in the car park ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 18:04
Post #157


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,926
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



QUOTE
TCP Ltd hasn't closed

TCP Ltd Version 1 has become Smart Parking Ltd but has to wait until signs have been updated before it can operate in the car park and legally ask for payment

TCP Ltd Version 2 has existed since December and has collected the payments by pretending to be TCP Ltd version 1
Smart Parking Ltd has been sending the letters under their old name and directing the payments to version 2


excellent summary !

Have to wonder if the Notices are tuis 'false instruments' hence possibly forgery ?
AIUI it is defined as:
the making of a false instrument with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atilla
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 20:51
Post #158


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 452
Joined: 4 Mar 2008
Member No.: 17,766



QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 17:51) *
3) Should TCP be refunding all monies received through ticketing during this period?
It would be nice, and in fact if anyone made a go at that I expect that they would win a court case for reimbursement. However, since the company is no longer in existence it may prove difficult to get anything. The only exception would be if Smart bought out TCP with all assets and liabilities. The responsibility would then be passed to Smart.
I wonder too; I know my own Company Liability Insurance covers any liabilities that may be proven after the company has closed. Think of the liabilities extended to insurance companies in respect of the asbestosis cases for companies no longer trading.
Might be worth a shot.


TCP Ltd hasn't closed

TCP Ltd Version 1 has become Smart Parking Ltd but has to wait until signs have been updated before it can operate in the car park and legally ask for payment

TCP Ltd Version 2 has existed since December and has collected the payments by pretending to be TCP Ltd version 1
Smart Parking Ltd has been sending the letters under their old name and directing the payments to version 2


Interesting

It suggests that if payment was made as the result of a ticket, TCP Ltd version 2 is responsible because they had no contract with Asda
If it was made as the result of a letter, TCP Ltd version 1 (alias Smart Parking Ltd) is responsible because they didn't have a sign

Either way, couldn't ASDA be liable using the principal of agency by estoppel in permitting T&C Ltd in any guise to operate in the car park ?

Which is one of the concerns i raised via that rather useful link on the HMRC tax evasion concerns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stingo
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 23:16
Post #159


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 353
Joined: 8 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,471



I have seen locally at two different sites "" LTD "" has been carefully erased from the signage WITH A BLUNT SCRAPER as noted by other posters as well

maybe to comply?????? once complied ban lifted



few more hurdles to jump for them yet!!

oh n get ready for the all new signage coming very soon wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 23:54
Post #160


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



QUOTE (stingo @ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 - 23:16) *
I have seen locally at two different sites "" LTD "" has been carefully erased from the signage WITH A BLUNT SCRAPER as noted by other posters as well

maybe to comply?????? once complied ban lifted

few more hurdles to jump for them yet!!

oh n get ready for the all new signage coming very soon wink.gif

That still doesn't comply

For a document, including a sign, to be valid it has to disclose the identity of the actual legal entity
In other words, it has to say that Town and City Parking is a trading name of Smart Parking Ltd

There's a Town and City Parking (not Ltd) based in Liverpool
It only has ten employees but uses the same website

It's obviously not Smart Parking Ltd so by definition there are two companies with identical names

There's scope for more fun with this issue yet
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

14 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 29th January 2020 - 13:41
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.