Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Lotuslady

Dear Anyone who can help...

Am feeling absolutely square eyed and don’t feel able to search anymore threads at mo as WS still needs to be thrashed out... 

I have sent 2 letters in last 24 hrs to SRA:-
1) is complaint re abuse of process re fake £60 added at LBC stage
2) complaint re fax Jack Chapman signature...

I was planning on using both in my WS and appending them as an exhibit... From what I’ve read it seems that attaching the 2) one is maybe not a good idea at this stage??? Can anyone advise me please... I thought it might save me writing it all out separately in my WS and would be good evidence for the judge to see... Please advise if anyone can as soon as able.. as have today now and a bit of tomorrow to pull it all together.. and my eyes and brain cannot take anymore searching... Am doing my best to bring these guys down.. as have read money goes to funding something sinister somewhere which I cannot put up with, though can’t remember what?

Fruitcake

Please show us the scammer's WS including exhibits, and especially their alleged contract to scam.

If you haven't sent yours yet then hold off so you can received the collective wisdom of the regulars who will do their best to rip their WS to shreds.

I think your comment about the money going to something sinister is sometimes quoted by D_P_Dance. I believe it was something to do with an MP saying she/he thought the money might be going to organised crime including human trafficking.
I am not aware of any proof of this actually happening though.

Post the scammers WS then go and rest your eyes and mind for a while. Come back in a few hours to see if anything of use has been posted.

Lotuslady

Hiya Fruitcake, ThankU for yr response and info... hope this works... new to all this Dropbox stuff.. here is link to their scammy  WS https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6du3nrnh8dphjtp/AADr5t3Hpfmj4trdvp3JmWNua?dl=0

Re the WS I have not copied all their photos from their WS.. as don’t apply to the area I parked in and are numerous... also re Lakin appeal at end haven’t copied all this either as lengthy and hopefully assuming that you lovely forumites are already familiar with it?

ps please notice that their Fax WS signature of Jack Chapman is repeated further down the page...!!
i have scrawled over the pages in pencil with notes as think have picked up a fair bit of it.. trying to pick apart myself.. though not written much up yet other than cut and paste bits from other WS’s on this forum..

thanks again

Coupon-mad

also re Lakin appeal at end haven’t copied all this either as lengthy and hopefully assuming that you lovely forumites are already familiar with it?

Never heard of it, can we have it please or can you Google it and find it as a link on SWARB or a similar result?

Coupon-mad

Same as the other case where someone won in court last week - the contract is in the WRONG UKCPM NAME.

It is in the dormant company name 'Parking' not 'Park'.

Search the forum unless a regular can find the case quicker for you.

Lotuslady

Hiya Coupon Mad,

Thanks for your comments 
here is a link with the appeal I mentioned:- link to “UKCPM VCS Ltd” in my Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qdphb09v4uihegs/AAArOpy1-S2oAvPbWsTDywIva?dl=0

Sorry don’t really understand what you are saying re “dormant” company name “Parking”

As everything I can see in their exhibit uses the name “UK Car Park Management”?

Will have a look but not sure what am looking for and WS of mine nowhere near finished yet!!

Lotuslady

Hiya Coupon-Mad,

Apologies, been searching the forum for “Parking” thing.. not found anything yet... had ANOTHER look at contract just now and can see you must have a real eagle eye as can see the first paragraph says UK car Parking Management.. bingo! Just got to work out how to word it if I cannot find on forum.. no luck so far!

Castle

They have also got the name of their client the "wrong way round"; it should be, Shepherd Neame Ltd t/a "Ship & Trades"

Lotuslady

Aww thanks Castle.
Have just realised that the copy of the witness statement that I have has documents in it which are not labelled as stated on page 2 of their WS.. in fact pretty much not labelled at all.. No exhibit number at the beginning or anything that I can see... Is it therefore admissible as evidence? ( I have no idea what the court received obviously!!)

Fruitcake

Have a look at this thread with regards to redactions in disclosed documents.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure#latest

...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...

Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...

As for the contract, it has not been executed in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 because it has not been signed by two authorised persons within the meaning of the Act.

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

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(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.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures are illegible and therefore you require the scammers to prove they are actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.