I WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grimghast

My witness statement with no personal details shown.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1rxxhkmbdghknem/my WS edited.pdf?dl=0

Grimghast

Fruitcake said:

Who is the landowner? Have you identified them yet?

It the scammer's WS signed as a statement of truth, Para 17 says that the contract is directly with the landowner.
The contract itself says lawful occupier, not landowner, so there is no proof the landowner has a contract with the lawful occupier authorising them to form a legally binding contract with a third party scammer.

I believe the landowner is bisichi properties the contract between them and VCS has a directors signature from VCS and a property managers signature from bisichi

Grimghast

Fruitcake said:

Your VRM is still showing in the text of their WS.

Sorted missed it twice! pretty sure Ive got it all now.

Coupon-mad

Never, ever admit to popping to a shop and assuming that you wouldn't be bound by the terms.  You may as well give up now, almost, if you admit to that because this is why private parking firms are called in by landowners not wanting trespassers to use their land to 'pop to the post office' or whatever.

Why on earth would a driver not simply park on street?  You have to be observed for 10 minutes by proper Local Authority CEOs even on a double yellow, to discount the possibility of the driver loading or unloading or fetching a child/disabled passenger, or dropping off such a person who needs assistance/escorting to adjacent premises.  I don't know the set up of the land/that town, but ordinary town centre roads (with bays and yellow lines, all sorts of normal town kerbs) are SAFE to stop on, briefly, as long as it's not a London red route or a clearway, or if stopping would cause an obstruction. 

It saddens me that drivers seek out private car parks for brief stops and no-one teaches drivers to avoid them.

Fruitcake

Grimghast said:

Fruitcake said:

Who is the landowner? Have you identified them yet?

It the scammer's WS signed as a statement of truth, Para 17 says that the contract is directly with the landowner.
The contract itself says lawful occupier, not landowner, so there is no proof the landowner has a contract with the lawful occupier authorising them to form a legally binding contract with a third party scammer.

I believe the landowner is bisichi properties the contract between them and VCS has a directors signature from VCS and a property managers signature from bisichi

As I said previously, I do not believe Bisichi are the landowners because the contract says they are the "lawful occupier" which is not the same thing.
Either way, you should say that Bisichi is not the landowner in your WS as per my comments about para 17 of their WS and the statement in the contract about Bisichi being lawful occupiers, not the landowner, and all the other comments I have made that there is no proof the landowner even knows about the parking scammers being on his property, nor that there is a contract with ot flowing from the landowner.
Put them to proof to the contrary because no such proof has been provided in either the claim or the WS, and para 17 of the WS contradicts the statement on the contract. You then point out that para 17 is therefore not true.

Throw every scrap of doubt at the contract and WS you can, don't just sit there and say, oh well, the name on the contract must be that of the landowner.

Fruitcake

With regards to the contract itself.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 43 

 

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 44

 

For S43

 

43 Company contracts

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

(2) Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

 

1 (a) Rarely used

1 (b) Express authority means a statement from a person such as the owner, a company director or company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company, has the authority to form legally binding contracts with another party.

Implied authority would usually be found in the company’s Articles of Association or similar as held by Companies House stating that a person holding a specific title such as Regional Manger or Property Manager has authority, or a person specifically named by the owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company has authority.

  

For S44

 

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 the neither party has affixed its common seal, 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.

 

 

District Judge Simon Middleton said in his judgment of case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

In your case, The contract fails the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 since Mr Charlton does not have implied authority because the position of Property Manager is not mentioned in the Bisichi (Properties) Ltd Articles of Association held by Companies House, (or anywhere else) nor does he have explicit authority as he has not been named by his employer's owner, a director, or company secretary as a person authorised to form contracts with a third party.

The contract also fails the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 because it has not been signed by two authorised persons from each party, nor is Mr Charlton the owner, director, or company secretary so is therefore not an authorised signatory as defined by the Act.

Fruitcake

Grimghast said:

My witness statement with no personal details shown.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1rxxhkmbdghknem/my WS edited.pdf?dl=0

I suggest you remove paras 5 -9 inclusive as they add nothing, and take away a lot. It is irrelevant how long the car was parked or what the driver may have done.

Para 4, is my amendment more close to the truth? " ... but could only make out the first line ..." as the way it reads at the moment implies that you could read the rest or didn't bother to read it.

You don't appear to have a separate section specifically about signage. I can't see where you have highlighted the £100 charge being buried in small font near the bottom of the sign in contrast to the unusually clear signs in the Beavis case. It is much smaller than the enticing "Three hours free parking" written in large lettering.

I suggest you expand on the points I have made about the contract with regards to the Companies Act 2006. You should mention the specific sections, the relevant paragraphs, then state step by step how the contract fails to comply with the Act.
I have made some assumptions (about contents of the Articles of Association and the position of Property Manger, and about Mr Charlton not having the authority to sign a contract with a third party) but will have a look at that now. Put it all in anyway and make them prove the contrary is true. If I find some of my assumptions are incorrect then they can be easily removed.

Grimghast

Coupon-mad said:

Never, ever admit to popping to a shop and assuming that you wouldn't be bound by the terms.  You may as well give up now, almost, if you admit to that because this is why private parking firms are called in by landowners not wanting trespassers to use their land to 'pop to the post office' or whatever.

Ok I shall drop that part from my WS and insert fruitcakes points with reference to their being no valid contract from the land owner.
I'll post up when I've ammended those parts.
Thanks for your input guys.

Umkomaas

Thanks for your input guys.

.... and gals. CM is a laydee!

Fruitcake

Please post the scammers WS again, or at least the contract. I need it to check against Companies House entries.