We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Defence to letter received from CCBC 09.03.20
Comments
-
they included the contract which is between my housing association and PCM that says that they authorise PCM to operate a parking enforcement service on this land. I do not have parking allocated to my flat.
I read through the WS on the thread and I thought it was really good and I was sure this person will win and was so surprised when he didn't.
Thanks All
S0 -
Show us the contract!
Do not redact it yourself. Any redactions they made, tell us.
0 -
not sure how much I can share but this is the contract
0 -
notice it mentions being part of the BPA AOS scheme and CoP , yet the claimant is in the IPC AOS scheme and CoP !!!
1 -
Did you redact or did they?
DO NOT redact stuff!
That is an appalling contract. It isnt even a contract, as only one party has possibly signed it.2 -
It's from 2012 @Redx, when the IPC was just a twinkle in Little Willy's eye.Redx said:notice it mentions being part of the BPA AOS scheme and CoP , yet the claimant is in the IPC AOS scheme and CoP !!!
The contract means nothing as it is shown, it neither shows the name of the contract principal, nor the name of their signatory. It could be doubtful that a 'Leasehold Property Manager' is of sufficient status to be signing such a contract. @Fruitcake has the background on signatory requirements.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street2 -
Especially as the other party is claiming to be the freeholder!Umkomaas said:
It's from 2012 @Redx, when the IPC was just a twinkle in Little Willy's eye.Redx said:notice it mentions being part of the BPA AOS scheme and CoP , yet the claimant is in the IPC AOS scheme and CoP !!!
The contract means nothing as it is shown, it neither shows the name of the contract principal, nor the name of their signatory. It could be doubtful that a 'Leasehold Property Manager' is of sufficient status to be signing such a contract. @Fruitcake has the background on signatory requirements.3 -
They can be a Property Manager that deals with Leasehold properties - a freeholder parcelling up would like;y need such a person2
-
So old contract , incorrect details , not been updated to reflect IPC status , possibly not even a legally binding contract due to all the issues above , including signatories , to me it's not worth the paper it is written on 😜0
-
WE do need the OP to tell us if they redacted anything however1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards