PCN escalated to Court proceedings **EDIT - I WON**

nosferatu1001

Yep, blue stuff looks like the op did it

the black redactions look potentially key. Why are they redacted?
have you read the info on the fact they're NOT allowed to unilaterally redact info like this?

Fruitcake

About the contract. It fails the requirements 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 neither has the company's common seal, nor has it 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 filing history in November 2014, nobody with the name A PETTIT was a director, company secretary, or person with significance in, or a shareholder of Premier Park Limited in September 2014. Consequently they did not have standing to sign a contract on behalf of Premier Park Limited meaning the contract had not been validly executed in accordance with the above act.

Fruitcake

With regard to redactions by the scammers, see the Appeal Court decision 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

See paras 74 & 75 of the judgement. Since this was heard in the Appeal Court, it should be considered persuasive to the lower courts.

...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...

Fruitcake

It looks like the client's C/O address might be in Yorkshire, but I can't find anything at Companies House for a company with CBRE in the title registered in that county. Everything for CBRE in the UK comes back to a London address.
We really need the address for the client to be able to check if someone called Perry was authorised to sign contracts.

Castle

CBRE Management Services are simply the managing agents; they don't own the land. 

Umkomaas

In a scan of the contract I can't see any authority from the landowner for the PPC to progress any charge through the courts - I could have missed it. But OP, you must go through this in much more detail for yourself, you have a far greater interest in this than I have. The BPA Code of Practice requires specific instruction from the landowner to the PPC to take court action in their own name. Check it out. 

Littlewadie

@Fruitcake , Sorry I wasn't sure if I was allowed to leave that information on, so I used the blue to scrub it out. I did try to research the company but didn't come up with anything or the name either, but I only had limited knowledge of what I was looking for.
Here is the full contract, I did want to bring up the redacted part and the fact that the last paragraph states they will comply with the code of practice, but did not know if they could black it out, so have not included it in my arguments I have wrote down.

Fruitcake

So we have a contract that is not with the landowner. 
There is no company called CBRE Investors registered with Companies House.
According to Companies House, CBRE Management Services Limited has never been called CBRE Investors.
There is no contract flowing from the landowner to the scammers because there is no contract between the landowner and CBRE Investments Limited or CBRE Management Services Limited authorising CBRE to form a contract on behalf of the landowner with the scammers.
This Perry person was not a director of the landowner in September 2014 
This Perry person was not a director of CBRE Management Services Limited in 2014 according to Companies House filing history for this company.
A PETTIT was not a director of the claimant in September 2014 according to Companies House filing history.

In case number F1DP92KF, District Judge Simon Middleton said in Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

This applies to both parties in the scammer's alleged contract because neither of them were directors of the owner nor claimant. 

Littlewadie

From The BPA Code Of Practice:
If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary.

From Their Customer Licence agreement:


So they state they retain the right to take legal action to recover any unpaid parking charges on behalf of the company or the landowner/client.

Littlewadie

Fruitcake said:

So we have a contract that is not with the landowner. 
There is no contract flowing from the landowner to the scammers because there is no contract between the landowner and CBRE Investments Limited authorising CBRE to form a contract on behalf of the landowner with the scammers.
This Perry person is not a director of the landowner.
This Perry person may not be a director of CBRE Investments Limited.
A PETTIT is not a director of the claimant.

In case number F1DP92KF, District Judge Simon Middleton said in Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

This applies to both parties in the scammer's alleged contract because neither of them were directors of the owner nor claimant. 

Ah, so I can argue that they have no authority to issue PCN as no agreement with the landowner exists?