ANOTHER Euro Parking / Gladstones bites the dust - Not parked in (non-existent) marked bay or space

Coupon-mad

You just do it anyway and don't mention the issue.

brummie108

Attached are both their bundle and my bundle - both redacted.
Any tips/pointers will me much appreciated.
Apologies for the delay in replying, am having do so whilst working (key worker working 7 days a week at present given the C19 situation!)

Coupon-mad

am having do so whilst working (key worker working 7 days a week at present given the C19 situation!)

State that in the first point of your WS.   You want the Judge onside.

Umkomaas

Their bundle:

The address at which their witness is 'based' is a a mail drop.  Check it out on Google Street View (GSV). I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether this is or is not acceptable. Others might comment. 

Their WS Statement of Truth doesn't meet CPR requirements - 'The Claimant believes .... ' should read 'I believe ...... ' and should be brought to the Judge's attention as a preliminary, as 100:1 James Tark will not be at the hearing to be questioned.

Johnersh

I'll just throw this out there... 

1. I agree that half submerged concrete slats the same/similar colour as the earth fail to delineate bays. 
2. Erm, the PPC appears never to have executed the contract they rely on. Since the commencement date is the day its executed, arguably it has never been executed or in force. Not necessarily the be all and end all, if by conduct both parties considered themselves bound by it, but a decent point nonetheless. I note the registered office address on the bottom of the contract is incorrect, it having changed on 2/5/17. Wrong address, not signed, not great, is it? 
3. Erm, the element of the statement exhibit which is relied upon as to the location of the signs is dated *after* the parking event. 
4. To the extent that the contract is authority to pursue you to court, now that the agreement has ended (as I infer from the removal of signs in your photos) do they still have that authority to pursue this?

Johnersh

@Umkomaas that is genuinely the registered office address. This salubrious outfit formerly had an HQ at "side entrance to Spectra Lounge" which all sounds a bit 'Spearmint Rhino' to me...  

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

@Umkomaas that is genuinely the registered office address. This salubrious outfit formerly had an HQ at "side entrance to Spectra Lounge" which all sounds a bit 'Spearmint Rhino' to me...  

Have they upgraded, or downsized, I wonder?

Fruitcake

brummie108 said:

Attached are both their bundle and my bundle - both redacted.
Any tips/pointers will me much appreciated.
Apologies for the delay in replying, am having do so whilst working (key worker working 7 days a week at present given the C19 situation!)

The alleged contract has only been signed by one authorised person on behalf of the Client in breach of the Companies Act 2006 Section 44 which requires two authorised signatories (two directors or two company secretaries or one director and one company secretary or one director and a witness).
The alleged contract has not been signed at all by the parking company, so there is no proof they had a contract with the landowner at all.

brummie108

I feel incredibly foolish for not noticing that the contract hadn't been signed, nor that the aerial site view was dated *after* the parking event. Thank you both for pointing those out.
In regards to the framing of these points within my WS, does the following seem to adequate? Specifically the sections in italics which I'm not sure are either a) relevant, or b) phrased in the most apt manner.

Validity of the Claimant’s contract with the landowner

1. The alleged contract between the Claimant’s parking company and the landowner, that the Claimant has provided as page 6 of their bundle, has only been signed by one person on behalf of the Client, which is in breach of the Companies Act 2006 Section 44, which requires two authorised signatories (two directors, or two company secretaries, or one director and one company secretary, or one director and a witness). The alleged contract has also not been signed at all by the Claimant’s parking company. There is therefore no proof that they had a contract with the landowner at all.
   
2. As the site is no longer operating as a parking site, instead now having an apartment block being constructed on it (unnecessary detail?) and thus as the agreement between the Claimant’s parking company and the landowner has ended, I would question the extent to which the alleged contract is, and therefore that the Claimant still has, authority to pursue me to court (unsure what the standard legal-ese phrasing would be for this point).

Coupon-mad

You should use Johnersh's phrasing.  He is a solicitor.