Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

Johnersh

Have they done a witness statement verified with a statement of truth?

I'll leave it with you as to whether you want to address this with the court prior to the hearing. It should definitely come to the attention of the judge, as I'm struggling to think of a legit explanation. 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

The signature page is NOT the same document and indeed documents should *never* be prepared in that way to prevent fraud.

And UKPC are no strangers to that! 

Johnersh

@Umkomaas you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

@Umkomaas you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. 

No need, the Daily Wail has done it for you. It's gotta be right. 😄

Fruitcake

As above, the signature page appears to be from a completely different document. None of the icons at the bottom of this page line up with those with the ones on the other pages. There are different icons representing different groups/associations/entities compared with those on the other two pages.

I would suggest they were not printed at the same time, nor on the same printer and the signature page is a black and white copy, not a colour copy.

In addition, the signature page does not conform to the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006.

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

For a contract to be executed it must be signed by two authorised signatories from both companies or a director and witness from both companies. Authorised signatories are defined within the Act as either a director or company secretary.

This alleged contract fails the Act because there is only one signature from each company. In addition, the position of the signatory within the companies is not given so there is no proof that either person was authorised to sign in accordance with the Act.
The client signature is illegible.
The company number of the client is that of Mainstay Residential, not Persimmon. This means that the alleged contract was between UKPC and a management agency or management company, not the landowner.
There is no contract between Persimmon (the landowner) and this management company.
Therefore UKPC's alleged contract is not with nor flowing from the landowner.

The client signature could be that of Christopher David Brook, who resigned from being a Mainstay Residential Director in August 2014, a month before the alleged contract was signed thus making this contract a false instrument.
Alternatively it could be the signature of Paul Leonard Crook who was a director in September 2014, but the signature was not witnessed.
No other persons recorded at Companies House for this company have a surname that includes anything like a double O

You could ask the scammers and scamlicitors for clarification of the names on the contract as neither are legible, then check to see if the UKPC signatory was authorised to sign in accordance with the Act.
You could ask Mainstay whose signature it is, and whether it belongs to the other two pages of the alleged contract.

You should also be asking the scammers and scamlicitors for a copy of the alleged contract between UKPC and the landowner or the contract between the landowner and Mainstay authorising the scammers to scam at the location in question.

If you believe the signature page is from a different contract, or if you can get proof from Mainstay then you should mention it to the judge.

CVKTA

Johnersh said:

Have they done a witness statement verified with a statement of truth?

I'll leave it with you as to whether you want to address this with the court prior to the hearing. It should definitely come to the attention of the judge, as I'm struggling to think of a legit explanation. 

There is no copy of any kind of Statemen of Truth from them. 
I will be sure to flag this

Castle

The company number 04052477 belongs to "Mainstay Residential Ltd" but page 1 states that the contract is with Persimmon Management Ltd; (a company name which doesn't seem to exist at Companies House).

Umkomaas

More holes than a colander. Ripe for a DVLA complaint and a GDPR breach claim in due course. 

MothballsWallet

Johnersh said:

@Umkomaas you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. 

Are you quoting the Hon. Francis Ewan Urquhart again?

CVKTA

Castle said:

The company number 04052477 belongs to "Mainstay Residential Ltd" but page 1 states that the contract is with Persimmon Management Ltd; (a company name which doesn't seem to exist at Companies House).

Is this not covered with the Persimmon Management Ltd c/o Mainstay Residential line?