Multiple tickets = Fear

swan351

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.

So these two paragraphs should replace my paragraph 27? Do I need the links to company house?

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.

And this should be my paragrah 25?

swan351

Redx said:

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

Is this something to add to my WS, or something to mention at the hearing?
The agreement clearly states one (1) linked coin only payment machine.
I have recent pictures of all sides of the payment machine and it is clearly not the machine on page 17 of their WS. 

Fruitcake

Either replace or add the two sections above however best it addresses the points you want to make. I would include printouts of the relevant Companies House pages as numbered exhibits and refer to those exhibits in your defence points. 

Skyfield's entries are very short, and you only need the "People" page for Premier Park as it lists all current and past names.

Did you see the other post I made after the one about Companies House? Hopefully some of the more court savvy regulars can comment upon it.

swan351

Did you see the other post I made after the one about Companies House? Hopefully some of the more court savvy regulars can comment upon it.

Thank you. I would be interested to know. I presume they would just harp back to the contravention dates, but obviously I don't know the legalities of claiming for a principle that no longer exists. (or if that sentence even makes sense )

swan351

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.

Would I request this directly from the claimants representitive. ie BW Legal? 
Who and when do I ask for it to be struck out if they won't provide it?
Sorry, trying my best to make sense of it all.

1505grandad

Just checking re SWS:-

"5.3.5. A transcript will be publicly available shortly."  -  is this still true/relevant?

Le_Kirk

swan351 said:

Did you see the other post I made after the one about Companies House? Hopefully some of the more court savvy regulars can comment upon it.

Thank you. I would be interested to know. I presume they would just harp back to the contravention dates, but obviously I don't know the legalities of claiming for a principle principal that no longer exists. (or if that sentence even makes sense )

It might if you change the spelling as above.

Fruitcake

Well it depends whether you are referring to the head honcho, who would be the principal, or the terms of the contract, which would be the principles.
I agree that referring to the principal meaning the client in the contract would be the better term.

I was a Principle Engineer for 27 years because I worked to engineering principles, which is why I have that particular spelling stuck in my head.

swan351

swan351 said:

Redx said:

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

Is this something to add to my WS, or something to mention at the hearing?
The agreement clearly states one (1) linked coin only payment machine.
I have recent pictures of all sides of the payment machine and it is clearly not the machine on page 17 of their WS. 

Ok, sorry to ask this, but I'm really struggling with the wording on this bit. here's what I have and I  am far from happy with it. 

1.       A further error appears in the Claimants Witness statement and evidence bundle. Paragraph 10 of the Claimants witness statement refers to exhibits on pages 11-17. Signage in place on the day of the contravention. P17 is a photograph of a payment terminal that is not at the location in question.

2.       Referring to paragraph 2.1 of the claimants Parking Services Agreement, it states “an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system linked to one (1) payment terminal…” The payment terminal is shown in the claimants evidence bundle on P12, P15 and P16 and it is clearly not the same terminal as is pictured on P17

3.       Further to this, I provide evidence, in the form of photographs, of the payment terminal in situ, taken by myself on 14 August 2020. This again, clearly shows that it is a different terminal to the one pictured in the claimants evidence bundle P17. I believe this demonstrates that the signatory of the claimants witness statement is relying on information supplied or instructed by others or what he observes from the documents. They are not in a position to say that these things are known or that they are true.

Any help or suggestions gratefully received. (please ignore the para numbers)

Umkomaas

They are not in a position to say that these things are known or that they are true.

..... yet they are doing so under a formal signed Statement of Truth.