Help please received county court claim form and unsure how to defend

chinners

1505grandad said:

Some observations:-

Typos  -  You have several "judgement" erroneously containing a middle "e" in this context i.e.(there are others):-

Para 5.12  -  "....persuasive appeal court judg(e)ment Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited..."

                     "....where the judgment approved by the court ...."

Paras 4  -  are the exhibit numbers the wrong way round?

Para 5.1  -  "....... constituting a “contract” between (myself) and The Claimant."

                   should (that) be "driver"? 

Thank you @1505grandad I have run another spell check and corrected 5.1 and para 4 too. Thank you!

chinners

Thanks everyone for help. Please can you have a final look at the final pack redacted please?
hxxx://www.dropbox.com/s/ljl38v7rg8c87sc/WS2nddraft.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

Your link made live

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ljl38v7rg8c87sc/WS2nddraft.pdf?dl=0

D_P_Dance

It is incredibly long.  Thirteen pages for a piddling PCN seems a bit like over egging the pudding to me.  

Fruitcake

Before you point about Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, I would add a paragraph that the contract does not comply with the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006. The Act is very short, only a few lines, and should be self explanatory.

It concerns Simple Contracts and requires the signatories to have express or implied authority in order to form a contract. Express authority would be say, a contract signed by the owner or a company officer such as a director or company secretary, or a person named by the owner or an officer of the company.
Implied authority would be say, a specific position (job title) within the company being named within the company's articles of association, or named by an officer of the company. For example, a statement that a Property Manager has the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company.

Perhaps then add something like this after your paras about S43 and S44 of the Act. 

Horizon have not signed the contract at all. They are not a party to it so must be considered a stranger to said alleged contract. A reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus) would expect both parties to have signed the contract in accordance with the above Act, and for the claimant to show a contract signed by both parties.
The fact that Horizon have not done so, and have deliberately hidden the identity of the alleged client/landowner, implies that neither party had standing to form a contract.

chinners

D_P_Dance said:

It is incredibly long.  Thirteen pages for a piddling PCN seems a bit like over egging the pudding to me.  

Thanks for the feedback. I am reducing the WS - it was 7 pages, cutting down to 5. I included transcripts making it longer.

chinners

Fruitcake said:

Before you point about Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, I would add a paragraph that the contract does not comply with the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006. The Act is very short, only a few lines, and should be self explanatory.

It concerns Simple Contracts and requires the signatories to have express or implied authority in order to form a contract. Express authority would be say, a contract signed by the owner or a company officer such as a director or company secretary, or a person named by the owner or an officer of the company.
Implied authority would be say, a specific position (job title) within the company being named within the company's articles of association, or named by an officer of the company. For example, a statement that a Property Manager has the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the company.

Perhaps then add something like this after your paras about S43 and S44 of the Act. 

Horizon have not signed the contract at all. They are not a party to it so must be considered a stranger to said alleged contract. A reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus) would expect both parties to have signed the contract in accordance with the above Act, and for the claimant to show a contract signed by both parties.
The fact that Horizon have not done so, and have deliberately hidden the identity of the alleged client/landowner, implies that neither party had standing to form a contract.

very helpful - thanks! Have reworded please let me know if still too much!

Non compliant Contract

 

5.9 HPL have not produced a document that complies with the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006. A document requires express or implied authority from each party in order for a simple contract to be formed. Express authority would require a company owner or officer to name the signatory, and implied authority would require the company owner or an officer to give a position within the company (job title) the authority to sign a contract, or for a position to be named in documentation such as the company's articles of association. There is a redacted document in the Claimant’s bundle so the signatories cannot be identified. (pg. 15 GSL1 i)

 

5.10 Similarly, the purported contract has failed the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. For a document to be validly executed in accordance with S44 of the Act, it must be signed by two authorised signatories from each party. In other words, there must be four signatures for a document to be validly executed. The Act defines an authorised signatory as a director, company secretary, or a director and a witness.

5.11 HPL have not signed the document at all. They are not a party to it so must be considered a stranger to the alleged contract.  A reasonable person would expect both parties to have signed the contract in accordance with the above Act, and for the Claimant to show a contract signed by both parties. The fact that HPL have not done so, and have deliberately hidden the identity of the alleged client/landowner, implies that neither party had standing to form a contract. this goes against the findings in the persuasive appeal court judgement Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited Case No: A2/2019/1938 where the judgement approved by the court for handing down stated in paragraphs 74 and 75. “...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole...” and  “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”

 

5.12 No other contract proving the claimant has authority to operate, manage or enforce parking conditions has been provided.  It is therefore rejected that the claimant has the authority from the landowner to establish them as the creditor within the meaning of Schedule 4: 2(1) (b) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant therefore has no locus standi and based on their evidence cannot offer contracts to drivers. 

chinners

The hearing was this morning. Just got off the phone. Case was dismissed, took less than half an hour. As @Coupon-mad had said the main point was the fact that the NTK was not compliant. 

I did not have to say anything!

The judge asked the Gladstones rep on what basis he was bringing the claim - he said POFA2012.

The rep said he felt the NTK was compliant, so the judge went through the paragraph 4 and outlined the failings about keeper liability and he said the case was dismissed (summary)

The rest of the points were not touched as they had no evidence to prove who was driving. The judge wondered why they had not discountinued the case as it had no merit.

No costs awarded though because it took under 30mins and I was working from home. The judge felt I had nto incurred material costs.

Very thankful to God and to you all for your help in this rather stressful journey. It was really nerve wracking and I nearly gave up but you encouraged me to continue.

Really grateful to God it is over!

Thanks again. Will request for transcript and post, and also share the final WS for anyone it might help. What a relief!

ANOTHER WIN FOR MSE

D_P_Dance

No costs awarded though because it took under 30mins and I was working from home. The judge felt I had nto incurred material costs.

Nonsense!  They have wasted  your time, now consider how you can waste some of theirs,  after all the judge stated that it had no merit read this, they may have infringed your rights to privacy

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

chinners

D_P_Dance said:

No costs awarded though because it took under 30mins and I was working from home. The judge felt I had nto incurred material costs.

Nonsense!  They have wasted  your time, now consider how you can waste some of theirs,  after all the judge stated that it had no merit read this, they may have infringed your rights to privacy

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Thanks for the link - I have skim read.

I am just relieved this is over. I have no strength to continue - I just want to put it all behind and move on. The emotional stress cannot be quantified anyways.