PCN 3 from Ukpc

mitzy12

file:///C:/Users/mitesh/Downloads/witness%20statement.pdf
hi is this a proper contract? thanks.

Coupon-mad

I can't see that, seems to be your own download.

Redx

nobody can access your pc or laptop to see it


it needs to be on the web somewhere (a hosting site)

mitzy12

ok sry not sure how to show u but its a witness statement signed on behalf of landowner by "estate manager" Ken Webber. Also says line about "this authority is contained in agreement dated 4th july 2017 running in perpetuity until terminated"
Its about a page long.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like a landowner WS that POPLA will accept, what do you want to show us?

mitzy12

wanted to show the witness statement. does it not have to have end date? and is estate manager a suitable signature for a contract. should I not mention they have not provoded a proper full landowner agreement signed by landowner detailing BPA CoP paragraph 7.3?

Redx

take a pic or scan of the document and host it on tinypic

Coupon-mad

does it not have to have end date?

Not when it says it continues 'into perpetuity'.

and is estate manager a suitable signature for a contract.

POPLA will swallow it.

mitzy12

I know GPEOL is opposite of beavis case was pleaded and PE could not have claimed on GPEOL.

About paragraph 9 (2) b.....as windscreen ticket, this not apply,,, is this also NOT like beavis case?

as u said in post 52
Paragraph 9 (2) b
"UKPC say this, so they're saying their charge is NOT like the Beavis case then, which was NOT pleaded in damages or loss! "

or was that quote only referring to GPEOL?
sry i was just a little confused if its for both Gpeol and paragrapgh 9!! before i quote it.

Im going to be up for a few hours, finishing this. Deadline is today, but u think its ok to submit anytime during the night? thanks

Coupon-mad

i was just a little confused if its for both Gpeol and paragrapgh 9!!

They are two separate points:

1 - UKPC quote the wrong section of the POFA. para 9 does not apply.

2 - UKPC tried to plead the case as if it was 'damages based on a GPEOL', but this is the opposite of the Beavis case, where it was made clear a parking firm could NOT plead a case in damages! Any such claim must fail if the operator does not produce their listed losses. They can't have it both ways and UKPC don't seem to understand what they've said.