Multiple tickets = Fear

1505grandad

"DEFENDANTS SCHEDULE OF COSTS"

I believe the title should be:-

SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT

swan351

1505grandad said:

"DEFENDANTS SCHEDULE OF COSTS"

I believe the title should be:-

SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT

In the final (I hope) I have "defendants summary assesment of costs" 
Is that too wrong?

nosferatu1001

Just use the one you're told. 

swan351

nosferatu1001 said:

Just use the one you're told. 

OK. 

swan351

1505grandad said:

"DEFENDANTS SCHEDULE OF COSTS"

I believe the title should be:-

SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT

Changed as told.

swan351

I have noticed that one of the photos in the Claimants WS is of  pay machine that is not at the location in question. 
Is this worth highlighting at any point?

Redx

Yes , cast doubt on any exhibits that are incorrect , they signed their WS as being truthful , if you know it's not , say so

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

The recording will be useful evidence for a court claim, if PP will not cancel.

They read this forum and a PP employee officially posted here for about 48 hours last year, until they ran away because they failed to say anything intelligent and just effectively, by their weasel words and attempt at intimidation of a poster (for daring to post here) confirmed they operated a scam.

This is not a firm to pay money to. Certainly fight them all the way.

They are ex-clampers, a worthless and aggressive company offering no service to anyone, and IMHO they need to close down and make their sorry staff get real jobs.

Nice to know that the so-called AOS/ATAs are happy to have companies with people like that as members.

I wonder how many PPCs have people convicted of finanical crimes working for them, especially at a senior level, yet the BPA, IAS and DVLA are more than happy to have them in their "special club".

Ok, this forum software doesn't process CTRL + Left Arrow properly - it treats it as" go to start of line" when it's supposed to be "go to start of previous word" - that's frustrating.

Fruitcake

The contract has not been executed in accordance with the requirements of Section 44 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.

According to Companies House, Averil Flynn was never a director, company secretary, a company officer, or a person with significant interest in Skyfield Trading Ltd, and therefore was not an authorised signatory according to the above act.

According to Companies House, A Pettit was never a director, company secretary, a company officer, or a person with significant interest in Premier Park Ltd, and therefore was not an authorised signatory according to the above act.


District Judge Simon Middleton, presiding over case number F1DP92KF in Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020, found that "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner". 
This is identical to your case in that neither contract signatory was a director of either of the two named companies.


In Hancock v Promontoria (Chesnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 - link to the judgment here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hancock-draft-judgment-final-14-July-2020.pdf

The court of appeal found that: -

"...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..."

The contract in your case has been severely redacted. It is quite possible that redacted sections actually state that adjoining businesses have the right to park vehicles at the site in question. You require the claimant to either submit the whole document unredacted, or ask that it be struck out.

Having been heard in the Court of Appeal means that the above judgment is persuasive in the lower courts.

Fruitcake

If Skyfield was dissolved on 30/04/2019, then the contract to scam must have ceased at that point. Even though the contract was operational at the time of the alleged event, it was not in force in May 2020 when court proceedings began.
To my simple mind that means there was/is no contract in force that allows court claims to be made.
The scammers cannot be acting on behalf of the principal because the principal no longer exists.