Contract Statement of Authority signed and dates

[Deleted User]

Hi guys, 
Just a quick question - just received the Witness Statement of a PPC taking me to court for an alleged offence which happened in 2016. 
The Contract Statement of Authority they have attached was signed by the landowner on 21st May 2018 without any other contracts from 2016 evidencing the firm had the right to act on their behalf back in 2016. 

Now am I missing something here? Or has the PPC dropped the ball and provided the wrong contract? Surely they should provide one for 2016??
Any help much appreciated. 

Redx

a telling mistake that you can add into your own WS and any skeleton argument if you can do so

a signed and dated contract that covers the time of the incident is crucial, so an incorrect contract is a failure

parking cases often hinge on contracts and signage, those are the crucial factors

Umkomaas

Is this anything related to the other 5 threads you have opened about a VCS parking charge?  Is it the same case?

Fruitcake

Show us the contract that has been sent. There are usually other flaws in them.

If the scammers have failed to provide a valid contract then you aver there was not one in place at the time of the alleged event and require them to prove the contrary is true.

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the responses. 
I've attached the document below.
I queried about this particular case in one other thread but previous threads from before that are the case VCS made against me last year, to which I won.  
This is the case where the alleged offence happened in 2016. VCS never sent me any NTK back then, the SAR I requested back in 2018 never showed up any NTK from 2016. VCS are trying to argue the court should 'take their word for it' that they sent it without any proof of postage...  so obviously I'm going at length to rip into their character to display how untrustworthy these guys are and therefore how wrong it would be to to 'take their word for it'. 

In the previous case last year they didn't send me an NTK either, at least not until 6 months had passed. I have evidence from a DVLA SAR request that in that case they had my name, had my address and everything, but still waited 6 months to send the NTK? Clearly the admin team at VCS are pretty !!!!!!.

Back to todays case... The NTK they've attached to their  WS isn't even POFA complaint. It in no where states the "if after 28 days the Parking Charge in this notice is not paid in full, and we do not know the name and current address of the driver, we will have the right to recover from you (registered keeper), so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” blah blah and therefore not compliant with Sched 4 Para 8 (f). 

Umkomaas

Now am I missing something here? Or has the PPC dropped the ball and provided the wrong contract? Surely they should provide one for 2016??
Any help much appreciated. 

They've dropped a b0ll0ck. 

beamerguy

I see there are a few pages ..... where is the VCS signature and date
Does it state anywhere that the new agreement replaces any previous contract ?

D_P_Dance

You are missing nothing.  Your details may have been obtained unlawfully from the DVLA.  Because of this, a  counter claim for £500 - £750 may be possible for breach of your data.  if this gets to court.

Why five threads?

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

nosferatu1001

You point out to the court
1) They have supplied a response to a SAR that shows no NTK
Failing to supply all data held is an offence, so they have confirmed that there is no NtK by their omission 
2) By stating there IS a NTK, they are admitting they are liars - that they did NOT supply all data held on the dat subject
AND they are admitting to a criminal offence. 
OR
They are liars for stating there was a NtK - meaning they have committed perjury, again a criminal offence.
Which criminal offence are they admitting to?
In addition, they have confirmed there is no contract in place in 2016, because the only contract they have is from 2018. 

D_P_Dance

The phrase "short and curlies" come to mind.

Fruitcake

Ask a board guide to merge all your threads, and please, please only stick to one.

There are lots of things wrong with that piece of toilet paper.

As you have already mentioned, it is dated two years after that of the alleged event.

According to Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006, a contract is only executed (valid) if it is signed by two authorised persons, or a director and a witness, from each party. There is only a signature on behalf of the landowner, and they are not an authorised signatory nor a director. The Act defines the meaning of authorised, and a manager is not one of them.
There are no signatures at all from the scammers so there is nothing to show they agreed to the contract.

All in all it is not worth the paper upon which it is writ.

Since the scammers did not have authority from the landowner at the time of the alleged event, you should make the complaints to the DVLA about this DPA/GDPR breach as well as it being a DVLA KADOE breach.
Also complain to the ICO about this data breach.

Again, please get all your threads merged and then stick to one and only one thread. The regulars won't want to go flitting all over the site to find the background to your case.