DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61244--------------------------------------------------
Re: PO Box address invalidating a contract?
By: PallasAthena Date: March 7, 2025, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there a requirement in English contract law that a contract
requires an address to be included at all to give the contract
validity? I don't know the answer but I have never seen that
stated in any legal text book about contract law. The identity
of the parties needs to be clear but if it is a registered
company using their correct registered name their identity
surely will be clear as there can only be one company registered
with that name.
#Post#: 61248--------------------------------------------------
Re: PO Box address invalidating a contract?
By: b789 Date: March 7, 2025, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you ever receive a PCN from Britannia Parking, it does not
identify which Britannia Parking you are dealing with as there
are at least four companies in the Britannia Parking group, each
a separate registered company. It does not even mention the word
"creditor" as required under PoFA. It only says that "we have
the right to recover any unpaid part... blah blah".
Does this matter?
The only mention of the registered company is as follows:
[indent]www.britannia-parking.co.uk
Registered in England No. 08182990
Registered office: County Gates House, 7th Floor, 300 Poole
Road, Poole, RH19 187
Britannia Parking is a registered Trading Name of Britannia
Parking Group Limited and any of its wholly owned
subsidiaries[/indent]
So, it is not clear who the actual creditor is and could be any
one of at least four registered companies:
BRITANNIA PARKING LIMITED
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED
BRITANNIA PARKING SERVICES LIMITED
BRITANNIA PARKING TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD
#Post#: 61735--------------------------------------------------
Re: PO Box address invalidating a contract?
By: dannyno Date: March 10, 2025, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has yet made the obvious point
that all these citations to the The Companies (Trading
Disclosures) Regulations 2008, are to the Regulations as they
were originally made.
But the regulations have in fact since been revoked, as it
plainly states if you click on the "latest available" link.
They were revoked by The Company, Limited Liability Partnership
and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/17/contents
So what you apparently need to be looking at is part 6 of those
regulations.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/17/part/6
The requirement to display its registered name at "any such
location at which it carries on on business" is still
there(22.2).
But there is no requirement stated to display an address. But
then nor was there any such requirement in the previous
regulations either.
That leaves the question of whether there is any requirement to
have a registered office address on a contract or invitation to
contract such as a car park sign. What's interesting is the
list of occasions where a registered name is required to be
displayed is lengthy, but the list for an address is limited to
business letters, order forms, and websites. And doesn't
include "invoices and other demands for payment" as the list for
registered name does.
#Post#: 61749--------------------------------------------------
Re: PO Box address invalidating a contract?
By: andy_foster Date: March 10, 2025, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many would consider that the fact that the provision which does
not support the argument has been moved from one set of
Regulations to another set of Regulations, without any material
changes, and which still does not support the argument, is not
the obvious point.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page