UKCPM - All appeals must be done by postal?

Fruitcake

Blimey, that's difficult to read with so much of it downside up.

From Mr Chapman's WS:  

Signed by "him" on 20th March 202, yet at para 4) the ATA is referred to the Independent Parking Company yet the name was changed in 2016. This contradicts the name used for the IPC in para 46).

Para 10) says the alleged event occurred on 06/06/18.
Para 12) says the defendant appealed on the 19/7/18, but this is contradicted at para 13) where it says the appeal was declined on 06/06/18.
Para 14) says there was no response from the defendant and a further notice was sent on 10/7/18, but fails to mention an appeal was received on 19/7/20

Since these dates cannot all be true, it puts into doubt whether the claimant has acted in accordance with the IPC's CoP, and shows that the statement of truth is in fact false.

Para 23) refers to an agreement with the landowner, yet both para 5) and the agreement itself do not name nor show an agreement with the landowner, only a management company.
No contract has been provided to show that CPM has authority from the landowner, or flowing from the landowner via a third party management company.

The Contract: -

Recitals (What the heck are they)
The proprietor is desirous … is a wish, not a contract.

Para 2.3 only refers to collection of parking charge fees from drivers. No mention is made of keepers/registered keepers so collection of fees cannot apply to the latter, only to drivers.

The signatures do not meet the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. This sates that for a contract to be executed, it must be signed by two authorised signatories, or by a director and a witness, from both parties.

Since there is only one signature from each party, and neither are identified as being authorised to sign on behalf of their respective companies in accordance with the act, the contract fails to have been properly executed.
Neither of the signatures are legible and names have not been provided.
In addition, the alleged contract has not been dated by either party so there is no proof that it was in operation at the time of the alleged event.

A reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus) would assume that a reputable company would know the requirements of the Companies Act and ensure any contract signed in their name would comply with said Act.

You should also comment on their statement that your defence is an internet template by pointing out, so is their WS.

iWindmill

Thanks, understood.

Since I received the claimant’s WST from the court since I did not receive a copy directly from the claimant. (The court was originally scheduled for 9th April but due to COVID this has been postponed.

Am I able to provide another WST explaining SRA and Jack Chapman’s signature? Or should I wait until court and bring it up?

Fruitcake

I can't answer your questions about court, but there is nothing stopping you from sending a supplementary witness statement. Either it will be accepted by the court or rejected.

As for the Management Company called HML Andertons, I cannot find one of that specific name, nor can I find any variation of that name listed at Companies House ever having registered offices at the Aldershot address quoted on the alleged contract.

There is a company called HML PM Ltd that was previously called HML Andertons Ltd and Andertons Ltd before that that deals with property management. They have never had their registered address in Aldershot, and nobody with a name that might end in Patel has ever been a director, Company Secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company.

I would suggest you challenge the fact that no record of the named client can be found at Companies House.

Castle

On the very first page it states:-
"WITNESS STATEMENT OF JACK CHAPMAN
   On behalf of the Defendant"

It was as if somebody else wrote it!

iWindmill

Fruitcake said:

Blimey, that's difficult to read with so much of it downside up.

From Mr Chapman's WS:  

Signed by "him" on 20th March 202, yet at para 4) the ATA is referred to the Independent Parking Company yet the name was changed in 2016. This contradicts the name used for the IPC in para 46).

Para 10) says the alleged event occurred on 06/06/18.
Para 12) says the defendant appealed on the 19/7/18, but this is contradicted at para 13) where it says the appeal was declined on 06/06/18.
Para 14) says there was no response from the defendant and a further notice was sent on 10/7/18, but fails to mention an appeal was received on 19/7/20

Since these dates cannot all be true, it puts into doubt whether the claimant has acted in accordance with the IPC's CoP, and shows that the statement of truth is in fact false.

Para 23) refers to an agreement with the landowner, yet both para 5) and the agreement itself do not name nor show an agreement with the landowner, only a management company.
No contract has been provided to show that VCS has authority from the landowner, or flowing from the landowner via a third party management company.

The Contract: -

Recitals (What the heck are they)
The proprietor is desirous … is a wish, not a contract.

Para 2.3 only refers to collection of parking charge fees from drivers. No mention is made of keepers/registered keepers so collection of fees cannot apply to the latter, only to drivers.

The signatures do not meet the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. This sates that for a contract to be executed, it must be signed by two authorised signatories, or by a director and a witness, from both parties.

Since there is only one signature from each party, and neither are identified as being authorised to sign on behalf of their respective companies in accordance with the act, the contract fails to have been properly executed.
Neither of the signatures are legible and names have not been provided.
In addition, the alleged contract has not been dated by either party so there is no proof that it was in operation at the time of the alleged event.

A reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus) would assume that a reputable company would know the requirements of the Companies Act and ensure any contract signed in their name would comply with said Act.

You should also comment on their statement that your defence is an internet template by pointing out, so is their WS.

Thank you so much for highlighting all the errors you could find. I will amend SRA and include all the points you've made, as well as draft a second WST highlighting this. I will do it over the weekend, work has been crazy busy during this pandemic, especially that I'm a key worker. I'll try and find some time over the weekend and get started on my drafts.

Le_Kirk

Castle said:

On the very first page it states:-
"WITNESS STATEMENT OF JACK CHAPMAN
   On behalf of the Defendant"
It was as if somebody else wrote it!

No wonder they win cases if they are writing WSs for the claimant AND the defendant!

Umkomaas

@Fruitcake - did you mean UKCPM?

No contract has been provided to show that VCS has authority from the landowner, or flowing from the landowner via a third party management company.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

@Fruitcake - did you mean UKCPM?

No contract has been provided to show that VCS has authority from the landowner, or flowing from the landowner via a third party management company.

Probably.   

iWindmill

I have updated my draft email to SRA, taking on board some helpful comments here:-

FTAO
David Clare
Investigation Officer
Solicitors Regulation Authority

Dear Mr Clare,

Re: Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Warrington Road, High Legh, Knutsford, WA16 6AA (SRA ID 559050)

I understand that a complaint has been made under your ref POL/1278102-2019, and a current investigation is underway that suggests the firm may have been in breach of the SRA's standards or requirements and that the allegations have been deemed serious enough to warrant further investigation.

I am unconnected to the previous complainant but have been informed about his complaint, where template witness statements have been submitted by this solicitor firm, with identical wording and case law cited which are not only not true witness statements from their client at all, but where it is clear in at least one case, that 'Jack Chapman' could not have signed it.

I too have received a Witness Statement with the same facsimile signature, please see attached. I apologise for scanning error - I did not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement and had to contact the court for a copy and this is what I got.

I will highlight the following errors:-

1.     The statement was signed by Jack Chapman on 19th March 2020, yet at paragraph 4, the ATA is referred to the Independent Parking Company yet the name was changed in 2016. This contradicts the name used for the IPC in paragraph 46.

2.     The event occurred on 06/06/2018 as seen at paragraph 10 and the parking notice charge (PNC). I appealed to this PNC on the 19/07/2018, however, according to paragraph 13 the appeal was rejected on 06/06/2018.

3.     Paragraph 14 says there was no response from myself and a further notice was sent on 10/07/2018 but fails to mention an appeal was received on 19/07/2018.

Since these dates cannot all be true, it puts into doubt whether the claimant has acted in accordance with the IPC’s CoP, and shows that the statement of truth is in fact false.

With regards to the Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement :-

1.     Paragraph 23 refers to an agreement with the landowner, yet both paragraph 5 and the agreement itself do not name nor show an agreement with the landowner, only a management company. No contract has been provided to show that UKCPM has authority from the landowner, or flowing from the landowner via a third party management company.

2.     The signatures do not meet the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. This states that for a contract to be executed, it must be signed by two authorised signatories, or by a director and a witness, from both parties.

a.     Since there is only one signature from each party, and neither are identified as being authorised to sign on behalf of their respective companies in accordance with the act, the contract fails to have been properly executed.
Neither of the signatures are legible and names have not been provided.
In addition, the alleged contract has not been dated by either party so there is no proof that it was in operation at the time of the alleged event.

3.     As for the Management Company called HML Andertons, I cannot find one of that specific name, nor can I find any variation of that name listed at Companies House ever having registered offices at the Aldershot address quoted on the alleged contract.

There is a company called HML PM Ltd that was previously called HML Andertons Ltd and Andertons Ltd before that that deals with property management. They have never had their registered address in Aldershot, and nobody with a name that might end in Patel has ever been a director, Company Secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company.

A reasonable person would assume that a reputable company would know the requirements of the Companies Act and ensure any contract signed in their name would comply with Said Act.

Please note that I provide this (specific to my case) information for your investigation only - but not so that it can be shared with Gladstones at this stage - as my case is ongoing with an imminent hearing, and I have no duty to point out the other side's errors prior to the hearing. I would like to ask that you also consider my case in your investigation, but please do not show Gladstones all errors..

It seems clear that Gladstones' administrative staff have written and produced this Witness Statement, not Jack Chapman of the Claimant firm. Any company employee witness looking through their statement with due diligence before signing it in real time, would not have appended a completely different contract for the wrong car park location.

The 'witness statement' itself is almost an exact match template for those used by Gladstones in all parking cases they take to court (tens of thousands per year) and the same template is in the public domain hundreds of times on the internet and it is clear it is written by the solicitor firm, not the client.

Moreover, I understand you have already been shown a copy of a job advert where Gladstones were very recently advertising for freelance statement writers, working from home, which clearly indicates that their business model involves churning out template ''witness statements'' which appear to be false instruments with little or no input from any actual witnesses.

What concerns me most is that Gladstones is doing this for all UKCPM cases, and it seems likely they do this for other parking firms too, given the amount of robo-claims handled for the industry by this firm.

More generally, Gladstones operate under a conflict of interests, having been well known to have shared Directors with the parking Trade Body, the IPC. Gladstones and the IPC appear to conspire to encourage member parking firms to operate in a cartel-like fashion, adding £60 'damages' to each claim (which they are aware cannot be recovered due to para 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, and paragraphs 6, 10 and 14 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'grey list' of unfair terms, and indeed the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis Supreme Court case, in which paras 98, 193 and 198 make it clear any costs are already absorbed in a parking charge). The self-serving IPC has recently updated its Code of Practice to stretch the rules to make this added £60 appear allowable and as usual, the wording in the 'witness statement' I received, uses Gladstones' template wording to try to justify it. The unreasonable conduct and conflict of interests of the IPC and Gladstones seems to be an abuse of process, in breach of the SRA's standards and I suspect is unlikely to be something that is news to you.

Most consumers would never stumble across online information showing that the signature is false and the witness statement a regurgitated template written by freelancers for the legal firm. I believe this is rife and quite possibly a pattern tainting all UKCPM claims at least, and maybe all Gladstones' parking claims.

If you require any further information about my case please contact me using this email or my telephone number, which is xxxxx xxxxxx.

Yours sincerely,

(ATTACHED THE CLAIMANTS WST)

I'm in two minds on whether I should put in second statement or just leave it and challenge them on every errors at court. What do you think?

Fruitcake

There are a few typos that need correcting. In the second paragraph of point 3, you have "that that". In the paragraph that follows you have a spurious capital letter in the penultimate word.

There may be a few other minor typos that need correcting as well.