UKCPM Windscreen PCN

tank4228

I read so many threads and so many posts yesterday that it all started to jumble in the end but I believe I did understand the signature issue and I saw that cases have been decided on that issue alone so I included that in WS, along with a pdf I cribbed showing the 3 identical signatures.

I do remember reading a post, can't remember by who now, saying as things are, there is no point arguing the point of having an attended hearing as this could show I'm not 'playing ball' with the court order stating it WILL NOT be an attended hearing. 

I replied to the court stating, an attended hearing is preferred but given the global circumstances, a telephone hearing is the reserve option. 

Coupon-mad

I do remember reading a post, can't remember by who now, saying as things are, there is no point arguing the point of having an attended hearing as this could show I'm not 'playing ball' with the court order stating it WILL NOT be an attended hearing. 

I wrote that.  And I meant it, IF the court insist and give you no option, but that is not the case and you certainly do not choose options 'offered' by Gladstones!

Remind me, have you got an order saying that it will be a remote hearing on xx date?  If so, it gives you 7 days to object...and that is what the email to the court & Gs should be about, as per my draft email in the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread.

I'd just edited my last reply to you to link you to a person who is doing exactly that - copy what they are doing.

D_P_Dance

 as this could show I'm not 'playing ball' with the court order stating it WILL NOT be an attended hearing. 

Burt why should one play ball?  I have found that not playing ball works to my advantage.  

tank4228

I haven't recieved an order for a telephone hearing yet ! Holding my hands up, I completely missed @Coupon-mad's template but I did see the thread I was mentioned in! 

When I get the inevitable telephone hearing order, I'll fight back with the template just changed for a slightly different scenario 

tank4228

D_P_Dance said:

Burt why should one play ball?  I have found that not playing ball works to my advantage.  

You're right, I dont want to play ball at all! I paid to park and that should've been that but unfortunately I'm in this position! Really don't want them to win, they have no right to gain any money from me or most people they are trying to scam!!

Coupon-mad

When I get the inevitable telephone hearing order, I'll fight back with the template just changed for a slightly different scenario 

No.  In my latest reply in the Telephone Hearings thread (p10), it is crystal clear this is your stage - NOW.  People are not advised to wait till they get a telephone hearing order...

Fruitcake

tank4228 said:

Fruitcake said:

Have you received a copy of the alleged parking contract yet? This is exchanged at the exhibits stage. If you have it, please post a copy so we can try to pick holes in it.

Yes, I've got it !
Here is the Claimant's WS and parking contract. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/69hxkbdembbv3af/UKCPM BUNDLE[3859] (1).docx?dl=0

Where they refer to Elliot vs Loake in point 5, refer to the judge's comments in this case

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

Where they refer to the PoFA in point 8, state that there is no requirement to disclose the driver's identity within the act. Consequently you cannot have failed to do somethhing that you are not required to do. In addition where they say it is a requirement under para 5 (2) of the Act, it is not so and to do so is actually a misrepresentation of facts supplied as a statement of truth. 

At 28, adding a charge for using a card for payment is prohibited.

The contract allows for the issuing of charges and pursue outstanding charges. It does not give permission to issue court claims.

There is only one signature from each company which fails the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. 

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

This requires two authorised signatures from each company to sign, or a director and witness from each company to sign in order for a contract to be executed (valid). The Act defines an authorised signatory as a director or a company secretary.

There is nothing to show that Mr Horsnby is or was an employee of South Gloucester and Stroud College or has any standing to sign on behalf of the landowner.
According to Companies House he was not a director nor secretary of the South Gloucester and Stroud College Commercial Services (company number 09241494) annual accounts (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09241494/filing-history) in either 2017 or 2018.

According to Companies House he was not a director or secretary of the South Gloucester and Stroud College Academy Trust (company number 09353480) annual accounts (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09353480/filing-history) in 2017 or 2018.

In addition, he does not appear as any member, trustee, director or any other position of the only two companies called South Gloucester and Stroud College that are registered at Companies House.

You should therefore state that Mr Hornsby was not acting for or on behalf of the landowner. Since no landowner agent is mentioned in the alleged contract then you should aver that he could not have been acting in that capacity either. 

D_P_Dance

FYI, E V L was a criminal case which relied on forensic evidence, (paint flakes).    Ask them if they will be producing same. 

tank4228

Hi all (again), 
I've received the claimant's supplementary ws over the weekend and it rebukes the facsimile signature and the fact parking was paid for stating, this was not the reason why the PCN was issued. Here is the dropbox link if you want to check it out. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/itcgh0v2r6cujtr/BUNDLE (1).docx?dl=0

Many thanks as always ! 

Coupon-mad

Same as the one we saw earlier this week, already commented on another UKCPM thread.