Court Claim

Pickle20

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

This is the landowner contract that was referred to. It is with the leaseholder so i'm not sure if i can still sight this in my WS

Pickle20

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, you can't start talking about the 'Salisbury case' if you haven't said which case it is.  Why are you not just copying the current recommended WS example and adapting it?  There is only ONE in the NEWBIES thread. and I wrote it to take account of the Salisbury Semark-Jullien case.

I was looking at the old ones but i've found it now. Thanks a lot.

Pickle20

Ferrybird said:

In paragraph 3 you state that you were there with your partner. I'm not sure whether you mean this in the business or romantic sense, but why was your partner not able to move the car when you became unwell? Did they not drive you home or can they not drive? A Judge or the PPC may pick up on this.

In 7 when you say you were "assisted away" - how? Were you collected by an ambulance? Were you so sick a friend had to come and collect you?

Really appreciate your input, i'll work on it again.

Umkomaas

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

This is the landowner contract that was referred to. It is with the leaseholder so i'm not sure if i can still sight this in my WS

Is that it, the full extent of the 'landowner authority/contract'?  It's a joke. 

Pickle20

Umkomaas said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

This is the landowner contract that was referred to. It is with the leaseholder so i'm not sure if i can still sight this in my WS

Is that it, the full extent of the 'landowner authority/contract'?  It's a joke. 

Yes, it's just a page and this is the other side of the page.

Umkomaas

Pickle20 said:

Umkomaas said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

This is the landowner contract that was referred to. It is with the leaseholder so i'm not sure if i can still sight this in my WS

Is that it, the full extent of the 'landowner authority/contract'?  It's a joke. 

Yes, it's just a page and this is the other side of the page.

Well it's more than originally shown, but is not easily decipherable from the poor quality photo, not to mention the 'waves' in it bringing on some dry land seasickness! 🤮

Fruitcake

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

This is the landowner contract that was referred to. It is with the leaseholder so i'm not sure if i can still sight this in my WS

That's abysmal. Did the scammers redact it or did you. It is important for the regulars to see names on contracts.

Yes you can include it in your WS stating that it is not a contract with the landowner, and has not been executed in accordance with the strict requirements of 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.

It has not been signed by anyone from the scammers so there is no proof that they actually had a contract with the client, who in turn was not the landowner. 
If we knew the name and company details of the signatory in your case, we could check if they were an authorised signatory in accordance with the above Act (director or secretary) at the time the "contract" was signed. The signature doesn't appear to be dated either.


What other exhibits have been included in the WS? Are there pictures of the site and signage and a site map? What are the Ts and Cs of the self-ticketing operation referred to in that contract?
It would be useful for us to see the whole of GSL1.

Red for the blood that was spilled. 
Black for the mourning of those left behind.
Green for the new growth on the fields of battle.
The leaf at eleven o'clock, symbolising the time when the guns fell silent.

Pickle20

Fruitcake said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

What other exhibits have been included in the WS? Are there pictures of the site and signage and a site map? What are the Ts and Cs of the self-ticketing operation referred to in that contract?
It would be useful for us to see the whole of GSL1.

Red for the blood that was spilled. 
Black for the mourning of those left behind.
Green for the new growth on the fields of battle.
The leaf at eleven o'clock, symbolising the time when the guns fell silent.

Thanks a lot for your time and input, replay appreciate.
There is only two pages from them and the rest are copies of my appeal. i have attached the second page here. They redacted it.

Fruitcake

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

What other exhibits have been included in the WS? Are there pictures of the site and signage and a site map? What are the Ts and Cs of the self-ticketing operation referred to in that contract?
It would be useful for us to see the whole of GSL1.

Red for the blood that was spilled. 
Black for the mourning of those left behind.
Green for the new growth on the fields of battle.
The leaf at eleven o'clock, symbolising the time when the guns fell silent.

Thanks a lot for your time and input, replay appreciate.
There is only two pages from them and the rest are copies of my appeal. i have attached the second page here

So they have included a stock image of a sign, not images of actual signs at the site. In other words they have not provided proof that there are any signs forming a contract with a driver.

I'm guessing that the red box with yellow dots is the parking area covered by the self ticketing regime. Is there a key showing what that is supposed to mean, or any images showing what is supposed to be where the yellow dots are placed? Anything in their alleged contract to prove this is the relevant land?
The alleged contract says the self ticket Ts and Cs are overleaf, so is it and you haven't shown it, or is it missing?

You still haven't said whether you redacted the name, signature, and company details on the contract or whether the scammers redacted it. Additional points may be available depending on your answer such as a court case about Redactions in Disclosure.

You have given us parts of their WS piecemeal and we are having to guess what it means and whether you have omitted something important based on what we would expect to see in a WS from a scammer.

As I said previously, please show us their WS, and only redact YOUR personal data. Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn't mean the regulars here will think it is. In addition, the context of the parts you have posted are difficult to fathom without seeing the whole thing.

Red for the blood that was spilled. 
Black for the mourning of those left behind.
Green for the new growth on the fields of battle.
The leaf at eleven o'clock, symbolising the time when the guns fell silent.

Pickle20

Fruitcake said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

What other exhibits have been included in the WS? Are there pictures of the site and signage and a site map? What are the Ts and Cs of the self-ticketing operation referred to in that contract?
It would be useful for us to see the whole of GSL1.

Red for the blood that was spilled. 
Black for the mourning of those left behind.
Green for the new growth on the fields of battle.
The leaf at eleven o'clock, symbolising the time when the guns fell silent.

Thanks a lot for your time and input, replay appreciate.
There is only two pages from them and the rest are copies of my appeal. i have attached the second page here

As I said previously, please show us their WS, and only redact YOUR personal data. Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn't mean the regulars here will think it is. In addition, the context of the parts you have posted are difficult to fathom without seeing the whole thing.

I have attached the doc below