fluttering ticket going to court

Loadsofchildren123

Who are all the entities? Are they all interconnected? The fact that a lender is involved in purportedly granting lending rights indicates they are, and the fact that there is some deed entered into by all 4 entities.


Did you read the recent thread about the case in which the judge rejected the case because 2 Directors had not signed the contract - some section of the Companies Act says that 2 directors of a company must sign a contract for it to be valid. You should raise that too, and refer to the case.

System

some section of the Companies Act says that 2 directors of a company must sign a contract for it to be valid

s44(2) Companies Act 2006

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5772224

claxtome

Thank you IamEmanresu and LoadsofChildren123 for you recent replies.
Very helpful.
Hopefully this post helps answer what you asked/stated.

I think I understand the difference between a Lender and a Registered Owner now.
It is what I thought.

Extra to this OR why I asked this question:
Further on in the title documents (3 out of 4 titles) it mentions a Deed being setup between all 4 companies (Registered Owners and Lenders)
This information is relevant as the Claimant's parking contract from their Witness Statement mentions the name of the 1 of the Lenders.

Questions:
1) Can I contact anyone, usually landowner to, ask for "are they happy the PPC is chasing me for..."?
2) If so who should that be?
3) Does the fact of the deed mean they are one in the same so should approach the name of the Company on the Contract?

[sorry very confused by the title documents I have got hold of - I can upload a redacted one if it helps]

section of the Companies Act says that 2 directors of a company must sign a contract for it to be valid

Thanks for the reminder about this and a link to the thread.
I had seen this previously so is an extra point to be raised in my Skeleton Argument.

Loadsofchildren123

can you upload?

Kirchenmaus

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Did you read the recent thread about the case in which the judge rejected the case because 2 Directors had not signed the contract - some section of the Companies Act says that 2 directors of a company must sign a contract for it to be valid. You should raise that too, and refer to the case.

(The_DJ_in_that_case) wrote:

As I say, if it had been a validly executed document on behalf of Parking and Property Management Limited, it should have been signed by a director of that company, it should have been signed by two directors, in fact, or it should be signed by one director and witnessed by the second in accordance with s.44 of the Companies Act.

I've already commented about this on PePiPoo, but my understanding is that two signatures are not normally required for a company to enter into a contract. Section 44 of the Companies Act does relate to formalities of execution, but those formalities only apply when a document is otherwise required by statute to be executed "by" the company itself, rather than by a natural person "on behalf of" the company. Section 43 of the Companies Act also relates to formalities of execution and states that a company enters into a contract when the contract is signed by a person actually (or impliedly) authorised to bind the company. The judge in the case referred to above offered no explanation as to why Section 44 applied to the PPC contract and not Section 43--and her use of the phrase "validly executed document on behalf of [the company]" in connection with a citation to s.44 doesn't inspire much confidence.

--Kirchenmaus

claxtome

Loadsofchildren123 you asked can I upload one of the titles->

can you upload?

Here it is->
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8j63yhjx5mba5y/RegisterCH178919-1.pdf?dl=0

Castle

Kirchenmaus wrote: »

The judge in the case referred to above offered no explanation as to why Section 44 applied to the PPC contract and not Section 43--and her use of the phrase "validly executed document on behalf of [the company]" in connection with a citation to s.44 doesn't inspire much confidence.

--Kirchenmaus

Creation of a legal interest in land:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/execution-of-deeds/practice-guide-8-execution-of-deeds

Castle

claxtome wrote: »

Loadsofchildren123 you asked can I upload one of the titles->


Here it is->
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k8j63yhjx5mba5y/RegisterCH178919-1.pdf?dl=0

The land owner is "The Winwick Partnership LLP" which is registered in England & Wales under ref LP009364. There are two general partners; Faraday Management Ltd (registered in the I.O.M) and Winwick Ltd, (Reg No 04969819).

The legal charge in favour of Investec Bank PLC is confirmed here:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04969819/charges/_axRbNK-ayVowSonvY7Z-9KcLDg

claxtome

Thank you Castle very much for that. I appreciate your help.
The Parking contract has been signed in the name of Iliad only (one of the lenders).

Can I use this info in anyway to help my cause as it is not signed by landowner?

At least I can complain to the landowner now about the Parking Charge.