Motorists 2 - PPCs 0

trisontana

Two threads have popped up on PePiPoo showing substantial wins by motorists against claims by PPCs. :-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947

Note the very dodgy "parking agreement" and the remarks from the judge about parking cases "clogging up the courts"

and this:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117865

where the motorist was awarded £400+ in costs.

Castle

I must go and read Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006!https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

System

2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a)by two authorised signatories, or
(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

That was a good catch by the judge. Many contracts are only "signed" by a squiggle and no identifying name. It's almost as if they have been presenting fraudulent documents to the court in the hope the judge doesn't pick it up.

Castle

Score update... it's now Motorists 3 - PPC'S 0:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103550&st=40&start=40

Castle

IamEmanresu wrote: »

That was a good catch by the judge. Many contracts are only "signed" by a squiggle and no identifying name. It's almost as if they have been presenting fraudulent documents to the court in the hope the judge doesn't pick it up.

And to the DVLA as well!!

beamerguy

trisontana wrote: »

Two threads have popped up on PePiPoo showing substantial wins by motorists against claims by PPCs. :-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947

Note the very dodgy "parking agreement" and the remarks from the judge about parking cases "clogging up the courts"

and this:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117865

where the motorist was awarded £400+ in costs.

Great read ..... The famous Gladstones incompetence
strikes again:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

muleskinner

Nice one!

The judge in that first case seems particularly 'on it'.

The_Deep

The District Judge mentioned that she thought my witness statement was overly long.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Seems rather unfair, even if it was 40 pages. I assume that Mr Jones is nor legally trained and wished to cover every angle. .[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This case reeks of unreasonable behaviour. Is it not unreasonable in a small claims court, which involves a small sum, for a claimant to spend hundreds of pounds engaging a barrister? Also, is not lying to the court unreasonable? What about not paying a court fee, a witness not turning up, and the claimant not notifying the court that it would rely on a witness.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Did not the judge have a duty of care to examine this? Dis not the judge have a duty of care towards Mrs Jines Should not a claim against her for negligence/ Is is not tome for motirists to go on the offensive about this abuse of court processes?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]WRT Mrs Pie, her husband deserves a medal. If only everyone had the cojones to go head to head with these bottom feeding solicitors.[/FONT]

beamerguy

TD, I agree with you regarding the judge saying
the statement was too long.

However, don't you get the impression that once
a judge sees it is the incompetent Gladstones,
probably two words would be too long ?

The_Deep

I do not know how well infirmed judges are, I doubt that most of the would do well on the general knowledge part of mastermind

Umkomaas

The District Judge mentioned that she thought my witness statement was overly long.

Seems rather unfair, even if it was 40 pages. I assume that Mr Jones is nor legally trained and wished to cover every angle. .

You’re out by 20 pages, plus a number of exhibits TD!

He goes on to raise a number of points and filed a 60-page witness statement with a number of exhibits, most of which I consider to be on irrelevant points

I must go and read Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006!https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

Looks a very interesting avenue and one to be exploited, not only in court cases, but also at POPLA where Assessors are increasingly accepting template witness statements signed with a scrawl in lieu of contemporaneous and unredacted contracts.

10 So, on that basis, I think that the entire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for Parking and Property Management to issue parking tickets or to operate a scheme in this estate.

Given the requirement for 2 signatures was not met, the judge deemed the ‘entire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for xxx to issue parking tickets or to operate a scheme’. I’ve never seen a PPC contract with a landowner that meets this requirement - which surely potentially puts the skids under everything?