NWCP Car Parks PCN - Over 28 days

manutd99

Castle wrote: »

The land registry shows N & V Properties (Lancashire) LLP as the landowner, whilst the NWCP contract states N & V Properties as the client.
The "witness statement" makes no mention of the landowner and as previously noted, actually refers to a different car park.

Thanks Castle.

Hopefully I don't have to go into detail too much and the judge doesn't agree with the NW that they are part of the same company as both owned by Mr Rigby.

I want to be prepared. If judge agrees contracts is valid due to being part of the same company. Can I say what Johnersh said.

Johnersh wrote: »

if N&V Properties LLP as a body corporate have the benefit of the contract, then there needs to be a contract between Mr Rigby and N&V Properties LLP authorising them to manage the land. This is because the partnership is a body corporate - Macaura v Northern Assurance Co 1925 AC619 will apply

I have not received a contract between Mr Rigby and N&V therefore can I mention statement above? Can print the following and use as reference for the Judge. Can say I only found this out very recently which I have so couldn't submit as evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaura_v_Northern_Assurance_Co_Ltd

Does that make sense? If I mention will the judge understand as to be honest I cannot get my head round the Macura link. Hopefully by simply mentioning the judge will understand without me actually understanding

Castle

manutd99 wrote: »

Thanks Castle.

Hopefully I don't have to go into detail too much and the judge doesn't agree with the NW that they are part of the same company as both owned by Mr Rigby.

Indeed; it will be up to the Judge to decide whether the "N & V Properties" on the NWCP contract means Company number OC393439, (N & V Properties LLP) or company number OC369873, (N & V Properties (Lancashire) LLP). If it's the former, then there will need to be a contract between the two companies.

[Deleted User]

Be aware the contract names N&V Properties - potentially a separate business to the LLP of the same name. However, the uncertainty alone may assist you.

If it is with a body corporate, absolutely there needs to be a further contract.

You're a litigant in person - most try and advance any argument they can. You may as well....

manutd99

Johnersh wrote: »

Be aware the contract names N&V Properties - potentially a separate business to the LLP of the same name. However, the uncertainty alone may assist you.

If it is with a body corporate, absolutely there needs to be a further contract.

You're a litigant in person - most try and advance any argument they can. You may as well....

I've tried googling but don't fully understand what a body corporate is. Could you explain please if you have the time.

[Deleted User]

Limited companies:
http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/what-is-a-limited-company

The position with a limited liability partnership (LLP) is similar. It is a distinct entity.

A mere partnership (like a GP practice, for example) is a collection of partners. Signature by one, binds the group.

Either there is a separate partnership and your chap is both a personal owner of the land and a partner of a regular partnership or there is a contractual irregularity because the LLP is the only partnership that exists and it is a distinct legal entity from the land owner.

manutd99

Johnersh wrote: »

Limited companies:
http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/what-is-a-limited-company

The position with a limited liability partnership (LLP) is similar. It is a distinct entity.

A mere partnership (like a GP practice, for example) is a collection of partners. Signature by one, binds the group.

Either there is a separate partnership and your chap is both a personal owner of the land and a partner of a regular partnership or there is a contractual irregularity because the LLP is the only partnership that exists and it is a distinct legal entity from the land owner.

Sort of makes sense so thanks. Prob might be too much info for the judge and the Parking company rep prob wont know the ins and outs so just see how it pans out before going into much detail. Can't look into it and think about this aspect too much as my hearing is tomorrow so finalising what I need to say.

manutd99

At the court. 2 people from their side have arrived. Clerk advised 2 managers. One is the development manager. Not sure who the second person is. So 2 against 1

5 cases back to back so each in turn.

claxtome

Good luck. Go knock them for six.

nosferatu1001

Good luck! Worst case you have cost them two managers time, so more than they can ever recover.
Object to some of the claim e.g. £50 to file the claim if it comes to you losing - these claims are all quick for them to file, the £50 isnt demonstrable and is simply the max they can charge. Ask them to substantiate it.

prosnap

Bump to keep this on the first page and hoping for an update