UKCPM Claim form received - Allocated Space/Access By KeyFob

Le_Kirk

3. The claim against me relates to parking charges that allegedly occurred at my previous address XXXXX from which I was a tenant from 31st August 2018 to 30th August 2020 (See exhibit A01 tenancy agreement).

Maybe: -

3. The claim against me relates to parking charges that allegedly occurred at my previous address XXXXX from which where I was a tenant from 31st August 2018 to 30th August 2020 (See exhibit A01 tenancy agreement).

4. When ........... regime was intended to deter trespassers not good standing residents who pay towards the buildings upkeep.

Maybe: -

4. When .............. the regime was intended to deter trespassers and not good long standing residents who pay towards the buildings upkeep.

You've used A01 twice!

KeithP

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Surely that should read "I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true".

Instead of labelling your exhibits A01, A02, etc., I would suggest that you replace the 'A' with your initials. For example, if your name was David Cameron, then you would use DC01, DC02, etc.

1505grandad

Pedantic mode:-

"17. This is clear from several cases. An example In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016],......."

"et al"

Para 18  -  no middle "e" in Judgment in this context

"DE MINIMIS (PRINCIPAL) / UNFAIR TERM"

(PRINCIPLE)

I believe you have copied and pasted an old WS as you refer to:-

"Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999"  - which I believe have been replaced 

and:-

"24. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA ......"  which I believe is not now used.

No doubt others with more knowledge than I will comment in due course.

Coupon-mad

Remove #24 as we no longer use that.

Remove 'partially' from #5.  That point should not use the word, as you then say it in #6 anyway.  Better that #5 says you 'displayed'.

#16 says 'Beavis v ParkingEye'. Wrong (he didn't sue them!).

dspan156

Thank you all, I will make the adjustments 

Fruitcake

Please show us the scammer's WS and exhibits including their alleged contract with the landowner. Only redact your personal information.
Wait for comments on this before you submit your WS, but obviously don't miss your filing date.

dspan156

dspan156

KeithP

I had to smile at the last sentence of Mr Chapman's Statement of Truth...

And it still seems very wrong to me that he starts that SoT with "The Claimant believes...".
The Claimant being a limited liability company, surely cannot have any beliefs at all.

Almost like he is making a SoT on behalf of someone else. That cannot be right, particularly when he goes on to state "the contents of this my statement". 

The only assertion that Mr Chapman can possibly make is what he believes, and he is clearly not willing to do that for some reason.

Not the first time this has been mentioned...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77485841/#Comment_77485841

Fruitcake

Please have a look at this thread about redactions in disclosure. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure/p1

You need to include comments in your witness statement that the redactions remove information about the identity of the landowner and therefore there is no proof that it applies to the location in question. It could be a contract for a completely different location or owner entirely. You should put the claimant to strict proof the contract applies to the owner and location of your site.

You should also state that 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 does not have the company 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.

In addition, the signatures have been redacted and therefore you require the scammers to prove they are 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. 
Also mention that the signatories position or standing has not been stated, so there is no proof either have the authority to sign a contract on behalf of the parking company or landowner.

As such the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament