LBC received from BW Legal

nosferatu1001

Why did you take out the photos?
You really should take the time to look at their usual template garbage. It will help you rebut their crap. Its insultingly easy to do - theyre really not very bright!
1) You point out to the court that para 76 is a lie, and the proof is...
2) again, pretty easy to show! Makes thm look REALLY stupid as they dont even know what THEIR tickets say! 

on.wheels

Sorry, I should have said - I removed the photos as the file size was too big to upload. I've just re-uploaded after splitting in to 3 parts.

beamerguy

@"on.wheels"
It is flawed.  Others will comment and I would comment but away from the prying eyes of BWL who read this forum.   If you would like to PM me, I can give you my thoughts. You will need a crib sheet 

on.wheels

nosferatu1001 said:

1) You point out to the court that para 76 is a lie, and the proof is...

I haven't attached any evidence that it is the wrong company number. As I have submitted my bundle already, is there any other way to prove this in court? Would the Judge be prepared to look up company information? I guess not.

Fruitcake

on.wheels said:

nosferatu1001 said:

1) You point out to the court that para 76 is a lie, and the proof is...

I haven't attached any evidence that it is the wrong company number. As I have submitted my bundle already, is there any other way to prove this in court? Would the Judge be prepared to look up company information? I guess not.

This is why I suggested you wait until you have shown us their WS before you submit yours.

However you can submit a supplementary WS with anything useful the regulars here find. beamerguy is a good egg and you can safely send him a PM if you wish to take him up on his generous offer.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, send a supplementary in, with teh companies house info. 
I dont see why you woudlnt prove somehting like that, without needing to be told to do so. You made a claim, something in your power to prove, and chose not to. 

on.wheels

I waited as long as I was able to and delivered it to the court the latest I could. It was just that BW sent theirs even later.

I have emailed the court the extra evidence. I have spoken to Beamerguy too and am confident that even if not accepted, I can confidently prove this on the day, or with a supplementary witness statement.

Fruitcake

With regards to the contract, it refers to the BPA code of code of practice. In 2012, the BPA CoP made no mention of allowing additional charges above that of the original PCN. 
Since the claimant is now a member of a different trade association, the IPC (which did not exist at the time the contract was signed) the defendant requires proof that a new contract between the landowner and claimant exists where the claimant agrees to abide by the IPC CoP.

Any reference within the claim that mentions IPC membership or code of practice is irrelevant. Only the CoP of the ATA named in the contract can apply.

The dates following both signatures appear to have been written by the same person. It is therefore possible that the alleged client might have signed the document on a different day to the claimant using a partially filled out contract page.

The contract has not been executed in accordance with section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

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 Armtrac signature is illegible and therefore you require the scammers to prove they were actually an employee of the company concerned nor in what capacity they are employed.

The client's signature is purported to be that of Peter Eddy. There are four entries registered at Companies House for a person of that name and the address quoted on the contract. None of those four entries are for The Stennack Car Park. It is therefore avered that Peter Eddy was not the landowner, nor a director, nor company secretary, nor a person with significant interest in the named car park, and therefore not an authorised signatory within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/0vvw1YOWqTOOXk2Rc7w2WrXEnuM/appointments

DoaM

Sorry, but ..... 2012? Is that a typo? If the incident in question is from 2012 then they're out of time to pursue and the OP has a statutory defence. Or was 2012 the contract start date?

Coupon-mad

2012 was the contract start date.

@beamerguy I'd like to assist with this OP's crib sheet and collaborate with you, as there is so much to say.  We can also use the crib sheet for future BW cases.