POPLA refused my appeal - should I write back?

Coupon-mad

Yes please show us their WS and evidence, including the whole 'landowner contract'.

Are you SURE it's a hearing in person?  Very rare these days.

nuremburger06

Will post the initial WS up later. Just received a supplementary WS from them via email and this covering email.

“We write in reference to the above matter. 

We attach, by way of filing, the Claimant’s supplementary witness statement.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to CPR 27.9 (a) & (b) that our client will not be in attendance at the hearing and wish for the Court to decide the claim in their absence. Please note that our client will be represented by an advocate.

We have copied in the Defendant by way of service.”

Coupon-mad

Easily rebutted with the BPA Article, is it already in your evidence?

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a)    Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

nuremburger06

BWL's original WS

nuremburger06

nuremburger06

Landowner contract

Umkomaas

They cannot unilaterally redact the contract like that. 

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

nosferatu1001

Especially the section about pcn being blanked out
snd the actual names so you can't confirm if the person signing had the authority to do so 

have you read the MULTIPLE threads that tell you how to dissect a contract?

Fruitcake

With regards to the contract, it fails the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, and therefore is not a valid contract.

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 have been deliberately redacted 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.

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCNs are also invalid.
(Quote the relevant part of the BPA CoP concerning permission to operate and state that the contract failure is also a CoP failure)

I am quite sure the scammers (company) signatory is A Pettit. According to Companies House records, he has never been a director, nor company secretary, nor someone with significant interest in the company. Consequently he was never in a position to sign a contract in accordance with the said Act quoted above.

In case number F1DP92KF heard before District Judge Simon Middleton at the Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2010, the judge stated that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner". Your case is no different. A Pettit could not have signed the contract on behalf of the company because he was not a director or secretary of that company.

nuremburger06

Thanks for the posts about the contract. Having examined it properly it does seem the contract is not valid. Do I just raise this at the hearing or do I need to send it to the court/claimant before the hearing?