General form of Judgement or Order

DoaM

Coupon-mad said:

By 'email' or 'mail'?   Can't see that word.

Worth clarifying ... but it would be incredulous of the court order had conflicting information, given that they stated in caps about not accepting email bundles.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, its the claimants job to file, so you will be emailing your bundle to teh claimant. 
I wouldnt worry about how the C will file it, thats their issue...

nosferatu1001

Also you havent read the order
The deadline for agreement on the bundle, and for the C to send it to the court, is 5 working days. Not 14. 

henrik777

Anyone can alter witness statements at any time (although if the court has imposed a time limit it could be problematic).

However, witness evidence relies on a witness being believed. If the story is changing then a witness is less likely to be believed and any evidence will carry far less weight. If it comes down to he said she said the person with the consistent evidence is likely to be believed.

Umkomaas

I just wondered if I'd shot myself in the foot and that the Scammers would include the landowner contract now, something they havent in their original WS. 

If they had a credible landowner contract and you had questioned its existence in your Defence, don't you think they would have already produced that?

Fruitcake

With regards to the "contract", it fails to meet the strict requirements of Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. (It's very short so worth a read.)

I have copied this from another thread.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

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 signatures are illegible and therefore you require the scammers to prove they were actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.


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.

Fruitcake

There's more. In the recent case where our beloved C-m thrashed OPS in court, the judge made these findings. (My bold). I suggest you mention that the scammers have failed both Acts of Parliament and therefore the alleged contract is void.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejv0ytejgnu4f57/One%20Parking%20Solution%20v%20Ms%20W%205%20Feb%202020.pdf?dl=0

At 14.   The lease is defective and void.

At 38.   Claimants Lease
... the claimants, who are the tenant, have failed properly to sign the document as a deed.
The point is elementary and covered by section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

"An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if --
(a) it is signed --
(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; or
(ii) at his discretion and in his presence and the presence of two witnesses who each attest the signature; and ...

At 39.   What the claimants have produced is therefore is defective evidence and there is no evidence before the court of their entitlement to manage the land, nor to sue on behalf of the landowner.

DoaM

After this OP's rant at umk in the Feeding Frenzy thread, I wonder how much further advice is going to be given?