Double Parking Charge Notice for "Not displaying a valid permit"

Fruitcake

pastacolg said:

@Fruitcake would you be comfortable if someone posted online your signature you use for banking, contracts, etc? I want to protect that.

I'll post the agreement shortly. It's very weak so I'll built a nice WS around that too.

The solicitors are BW Legal.

There is no problem with posting information that is already in the public domain.

When I was gainfully employed, my name, position within the company, and some documents containing my business signature were in the public domain. Anything then and now that I used for personal or banking purposes had a different version of my name and signature that has never been in the public domain.

There are regulars on this forum who may be able to tell you if a paralegal is legally qualified to act for their employer, and whether they have a right of audience to appear in court. The regulars cannot do this if they don't know who it is

I have copies of some paralegal signatures that can be used to show they are a facsimile right down to the last pixel, a copy and paste template if you will, not a true hand written signature. If the paralegal who allegedly wrote that WS is one of them, I could post copies for you to include in order to demonstrate the one in your WS is not a true signature, but I can't do that because I don't know who it is.

If I saw the names on the contract, I might be able to tell you if they were authorised signatories as required by the Companies Act 2006. I can tell you without seeing them that MA the signatory is not authorised in accordance with the Companies Act. I cannot tell if the scammer's signatory is authorised in accordance with the Act because it is not visible.
If the latter is not an authorised signature in accordance with the Act then you should be using the persuasive Appeal Court decision in Case number F1DP92KF at Truro county court earlier this year.

If the contract was redacted by the scammers/scamlicitors then you should be using information from the Redactions in Disclosure thread written by Johnersh.

There is no point in me providing further information because I don't know which is applicable because I don't know which parts you have redacted and which parts the scammers have redacted.

One final thing, their correspondence has referred to the Independent Parking Committee on more than one occasion, even stating that the scammers were members of said ATA at the time of the alleged event. The problem is, the IPC changed its name to the International Parking Community in 2016. 

Coupon-mad

pastacolg said:

Am I still within the required time frame if the hearing is on 20 November and I will send my WS tonight?

Does the Order not say 'not later than 2pm' or '4pm' then?

pastacolg

Thank you @Fruitcake . Now I understand why you needed this stuff. I'm just not comfortable going forward with procedural arguments. I will put them forward but I am not sure I'll be able to counter their counter-argument. I am a lay person so I feel stronger with arguments that are at the core of my case, i.e. the primary of the lease contract.

@Coupon-mad the Order says nothing about the WS deadline at all. I won't be able to finish it before 4 PM tonight anyway.

Johnersh

No dates on the parking contract and doubtful it's signed by a director..

Get the statement in ASAP, but the order should say:

Dates for compliance to be calendar dates and to include time of day

2.9

(1) Where the court gives a judgment, order or direction which imposes a time limit for doing any act, the last date for compliance must, wherever practicable –

(a) be expressed as a calendar date; and

(b) include the time of day by which the act must be done.

(2) Where the date by which an act must be done is inserted in any document, the date must, wherever practicable, be expressed as a calendar date.

Umkomaas

I am a lay person

Apart from one poster who is a lawyer, everyone else who has contributed to your thread is exactly the same as you - a lay person. 

 i.e. the primary of the lease contract.

Primacy. 

pastacolg

Johnersh said:

No dates on the parking contract and doubtful it's signed by a director..

There are dates on that contract between the parking company and the management company. And I can verify the correct name of the representative of the management company.

I'm not sure any more if I've got the most recent correspondence from the court then. The last one is from 3 months ago and titled Notice of Trial Date. And still no response for an email I sent this week and the court's helpline is unavailable.

pastacolg

I have just found this topic which mirrors my case 100%. As predicted the primacy of contract is the best defence line for me: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6090607/pcn-parking-and-property-management/p1

Fruitcake

pastacolg said:

Johnersh said:

No dates on the parking contract and doubtful it's signed by a director..

There are dates on that contract between the parking company and the management company. And I can verify the correct name of the representative of the management company.

I'm not sure any more if I've got the most recent correspondence from the court then. The last one is from 3 months ago and titled Notice of Trial Date. And still no response for an email I sent this week and the court's helpline is unavailable.

I still can't work out if these are your redactions or the scammers.

If you redacted the above and can verify the name of the MC representative, do you understand the significance if they are not a director or company secretary? 
If you can verify the name of the service provider representative, do you understand the significance if they are not a director or company secretary?
Do you understand how to search Companies House for that information. 
Do you understand the significance of the Truro court case I referred you to earlier?

If the scammers redacted the above, do you understand the significance of the Redactions in Disclosure thread I referred you to earlier?

KeithP

Don't waste you time @Fruitcake.

@pastacolg has decided he doesn't need help with that.

pastacolg

@Fruitcake all opaque black redactions are mine. Sorry again. I thought that was clear. I have just confirmed the person who signed it on behalf of PPM has been a director there.