Defence to letter received from CCBC 09.03.20

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

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 !!!

It's from 2012 @Redx, when the IPC was just a twinkle in Little Willy's eye.

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. 

I'm happy to help, buy can only go so far because of the redactions. 

Sections 43 and/or 44 of the Companies Act 2006 apply. Simple Contracts (S43) requires at least one signature from each party, and Validly Executed Documents (S44) require two signatures from each party in order to form an agreement. 
In both cases, the signatories must be authorised to do so.

The posted document is not a contract. It is a bit like buying a property with outline planning permission. It's basically saying, we agree that we will agree to a contract, but is not the contract itself. There is actually nothing from the scammers to suggest they ever took the client up on their offer of agreeing to a contract.

Unless the client company's articles of association gave implied authority to a property manager, or an officer of the client company such as a company director/secretary/owner named the property manager, the document has not been signed by an authorised person.

Sabs2020

Thanks all
I did black out the address and names of the parties as I'm not sure I can post this?  nothing else. 
Even if I could fight back that the contract is not 'valid' does it change the fact that  PCM still is able to issues those 'invoices' or they don't have ground to stand as really they have no rights to issue those 'invoices' if the contract is not valid?
Thanks

Umkomaas

Sabs2020 said:

Thanks all
I did black out the address and names of the parties as I'm not sure I can post this?  nothing else. 

But it's the very thing we asked you not to do!

nosferatu1001 said:

Show us the contract!
Do not redact it yourself. Any redactions they made, tell us. 

Redx

Sabs2020 said:

Thanks all
I did black out the address and names of the parties as I'm not sure I can post this?  nothing else. 
Even if I could fight back that the contract is not 'valid' does it change the fact that  PCM still is able to issues those 'invoices' or they don't have ground to stand as really they have no rights to issue those 'invoices' if the contract is not valid?
Thanks

If you had read any recent posts by fruitcake you would know what is to be redacted and what to leave alone , plus you would have made it clear which parts the claimant had redacted

Of course they can issue invoices , anyone can issue one for any reason to anyone !!

Enforcing it in law is their difficulty. , Not the issuing of them

It's an unregulated industry , yet you are expecting regulations to apply as if it's a financial loan that was signed by you (that is regulated by law) , this is cowboy country

Fruitcake

Sabs2020 said:

Thanks all
I did black out the address and names of the parties as I'm not sure I can post this?  nothing else. 
Even if I could fight back that the contract is not 'valid' does it change the fact that  PCM still is able to issues those 'invoices' or they don't have ground to stand as really they have no rights to issue those 'invoices' if the contract is not valid?
Thanks

There was a case thrown out last year in Truro County Court because the person who signed the contract was not a director of the owner.
The problem here is that we do not know the name of the signatory, so cannot look at Companies House records to see if they were a director of the client company at the time the contract was signed.
There are parts of the contract that fail the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. There may be other parts it failed on, but we can't tell because you have hidden both the name of the client company as well as the name of the person who signed the bog paper.

Like I said, I am happy to help, but cannot do so if you do not show us the unredacted version. By redacting it you have wasted time that you do not have. 

It is your decision whether you want us/me to help you, or whether you want to go this alone.

Umkomaas

It seems to me that we are facing an increasingly uphill struggle with posters either ignoring what we are asking when trying to help them, or deciding they know better and doing what they want to do, effectively working against us.  

We waste so much time retracing our footsteps, trying to get the information so important to helping each case.  I'm far less inclined to ask more than once these days. 

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

It seems to me that we are facing an increasingly uphill struggle with posters either ignoring what we are asking when trying to help them, or deciding they know better and doing what they want to do, effectively working against us.  

We waste so much time retracing our footsteps, trying to get the information so important to helping each case.  I'm far less inclined to ask more than once these days. 

I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a poster to show us the scammers WS and exhibits, using the emphasised words, "Only redact YOUR personal data," only to find out later the OP has redacted it. 

I got sent down a vole hole quoting the Appeal Court findings from Johnersh's thread about redactions in disclosure, only to find the OP of the thread had redacted the document themselves. 

Often a poster has only a day or two, and sometimes only hours to get their own WS to the court. I don't know when this poster's deadline is, but I could have responded to the alleged contract posted on this thread this afternoon.

nosferatu1001

OP - can you see the annoyance you give everyone by taking your own path? You didnt say you had redacted, despite being explicitly told not to redact, and any redactions by the PPC we needed to know about. 
As you didnt know, then either do as youre told, or do research on other threads first. Instead youve wasted a lot of time, and as you can see, it gets frustrating.