Delayed issue of PCN

johnedit

Hi, Fruitcake.

Being somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the Airport I stopped on the Terminal Approach Road in order to asses which Lane I should take – here the road splits in to 3 or 4 distinct Lanes and Drivers need to take a specific one according to their needs. At this point my Passenger elected to walk the short distance to the Terminal as she only had hand baggage. After she left the vehicle I performed a U-Turn and left the Airport.

At no time did my vehicle enter and stop in the Fuel Station area and VCS have only submitted images from CCTV that show my vehicle stopped on the Terminal Approach Road.

Fruitcake

Aha, according to Companies House records, Ian Woodcock has never been a director of Harvest Energy.

HARVEST ENERGY LIMITED - Officers (free information from Companies House) (company-information.service.gov.uk)

He therefore never had the authority to sign a contract because he was never an officer of the company. This breaches Sections 43 (Simple Contract requirements) and Section 44 (execution of documents) of the Companies Act 2006.

Fruitcake

johnedit said:

Hi, Fruitcake.

Being somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the Airport I stopped on the Terminal Approach Road in order to asses which Lane I should take – here the road splits in to 3 or 4 distinct Lanes and Drivers need to take a specific one according to their needs. At this point my Passenger elected to walk the short distance to the Terminal as she only had hand baggage. After she left the vehicle I performed a U-Turn and left the Airport.

At no time did my vehicle enter and stop in the Fuel Station area and VCS have only submitted images from CCTV that show my vehicle stopped on the Terminal Approach Road.

Where are these images as they are not in the WS you have shown us? They will of course support your case that the alleged event did not occur at the fuel station. You should include this in your WS, and complain to both Harvest Energy and the airport owners.

johnedit

Hi, Fruitcake.

So, does this mean that VCS have never had the authority to 'police' the Fuel Station? If so, your revelation will have a massive impact on all assocaited cases.

Do you want me to post the images VCS included in their WS?

Fruitcake

johnedit said:

Hi, Fruitcake.

So, does this mean that VCS have never had the authority to 'police' the Fuel Station? If so, your revelation will have a massive impact on all assocaited cases.

Do you want me to post the images VCS included in their WS?

Only a judge could decide that. Do have a look at S43 and S44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short, but you need to understand them in order to argue your case.
S43 concerns a Simple Contract, and must be signed by someone with express or implied authority from each party.

My interpretation is that express authority would be an owner or officer of the company. Implied authority would be a position within the company (job description) given authority by an owner or officer, or stated in company documentation such as its Articles of Association.

I suggest you aver that Ian Woodcock never had express authority to sign a contract because according to Companies House records (include the two pages from the CH website as an exhibit) he was never a director of the company. The contract therefore does not comply with the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006.

If the judge or claimant's rep say a Retail Director has implied authority, you argue that the job title is not that of a company officer, else Mr Woodcock's name would be recorded at CH against that position. You therefore require the claimant to show proof that the position of Retail Director is stated in company documentation such as its articles of association, that a person employed in that position has implied authority to sign a contract, since it is obviously not a real director's position.

S44 states that for a document to be validly executed it must be signed by two authorised persons from each party. The Act defines authorised persons as  directors or company secretaries, or a director and witness. Since Mr Woodcock's name does not appear on Companies House records, he was never an authorised signatory and therefore the contract document was never validly executed in accordance with S44 of the Act.

I suggest you only include the paragraph I have highlighted in italics, but have everything else in your back pocket so you can counter anything the judge or claimant says. In other words, don't give them a clue that Mr W might have implied authority.

Note that this is an aside to your main point that the vent occurred outside the area the claimant is contracted to manage, and that stopping is not parking as per the (Laura) Jopson vs Homeguard (Services) case. The transcript is available online so quote it and include it in your exhibits. 

This link doesn't always work, so it might be best to download it yourself. Do state that it was an appeal case and therefore persuasive on lower courts.

CM14P02455/CH13P02050 (wsimg.com)


We can only comment on what you have shown us. Omitting parts of their WS or exhibits means we may be led down the garden path by making incorrect comments because we do not have all the information.

johnedit

Thanks, Fruitcake.

All this just shows how novices like me (and many others who seek refuge here) look to people like youself for your valued knowledge and advice.

Here is a link to the 3 images VCS have submitted in their WS - I have hidden date and Vehicle info. These still images from CCTV  have been taken from within the Fuel Station looking across the Terminal Approach Road (where my vehicle is stopped) towards the Airport Car Park. No other vehicle images have been supplied or included in their correspondence, their Claim or WS.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/onzlbtittxt3i2f/VCS WS - 3 x Photos.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

Have they at any time shown on a map where this occurred? In any case, you should take their copy of the site plan and mark where the car was as one of your most important exhibits, since presumably it will be outside the boundary shown on their site plan.

Have they shown any images of signs at all, and shown where they were in relation to where the car was stopped? This is also a fundamental point in your defence.

Other minor points should be that the contract refers to 10 signs but the site plan shows 20. This shows that their evidence is unreliable. The WS was signed under a statement of truth, but the difference in number of signs shows that part of the WS is not true, throwing doubt on other parts of the WS and/or due diligence of the legal who produced it.

You only need to win on one pint. If the judge is waivering, one tiny point might tip the balance in your favour.

johnedit

Hi, Fruitcake.

No, they have not indicated the position of my vehicle in any Plan or Image.

It was/is my intention to identify the location of my vehicle in my WS.

They have included pictures of their signage within the Fuel Station - but as I did not enter the Fuel Station Area I thought addressing these would be irrelevant - save perhaps that I stopped to also read these and then decided that I would not enter or stop in the Fuel Station Area.

Thanks for the additional advice regarding the number of signs in comparison to the Contract and WS Statement of truth - Good point :-)

Fruitcake

By my calculations, the car was stopped just the other side of the speed bump in this image. Please confirm this is correct.

If that is the case, I'll knock up a set of pics for you that should prove this.

johnedit

Hi, Fruitcake.

I concur, that is where I stopped my vehicle and I produced a sereis of images identifying the Car Park Area 'D' sign, the Roadside Lamp Post and the CCTV Tower within the Car Park. I thought it may be a good idea to document the place from roughly the same position that VCS took the CCTV.

In your opinion, are these of any use?

I have uploaded them here:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwwxqwcrboryljg/Series of Images.pdf?dl=0