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

Grimghast

Fruitcake said:

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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb12hovphz3r28g/claimant WS - edited.pdf?dl=0
there you go.
working on editing my statement as per your comments now.
cheers 

Fruitcake

Phew! James Charlton signed the contract on the 6th of October 2015 whilst he was a Property Manager. He was appointed as a company director seventeen days later. The important thing is that he was not the owner, a director, or a company secretary at the time the contract was signed.
Therefore all comments about contract signature failures as defined by S43 and S44 of the Companies Act 2006 apply, but you will need to include this excerpt from Companies House records to prove this.

BISICHI (PROPERTIES) LTD - Officers (free information from Companies House) (company-information.service.gov.uk)

Fruitcake

I can't find the company's Articles of Association, only a reference to it.

I suggest therefore that your wording be amended to omit mention of the Articles, but do point out that no evidence of either implied authority has been given for a Property Manager, nor specific authority for James Charlton, to sign a contract with a third party.

Grimghast

Thats some great stuff fruitcake link for my ammended WS below think I've got everything in there you mentioned and deleted all the guff C-M said to get rid of let me know what you think.
Cheers

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmrgd58jhoclx0i/My WS edited.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

You have left your name and signature showing for the whole world to see!

Double check the following on the contract.

It states that it runs for a fixed term of 36 months from the 5th of October 2015. I can't see anywhere a mention of a rolling contract or anything about a renewal after that date. If the date of the alleged event was after 4th October 2018, then the contract had ended.
If that is the case, then the scammers had no standing to issue charges after that date.

I can see mention of PCNs/charges but no mention of court claims. This means the scammers have no standing to issue court claims in their own name, nor did they ever have any standing, meaning the claim is vexatious. 

If correct, this all makes a lie of the paralegal's statement in para 17.

Fruitcake

Capitalise Companies Act 2006.

Refer to their exhibits in your text using their reference numbers from their WS.
Refer to your exhibits in your text using your reference numbers

Tidy up the section about the Companies Act 2006. 
Refer to S43 and say why their contract fails the strict requirements of (that section of) the Act
Refer to S44 and say why their contract fails the strict requirements of (that section of) the Act

At the moment you have quoted S43 followed by S44, then explained why "something" failed the Act but didn't refer to the section number, then put another paragraph in before explaining why "something else" failed the Act but didn't refer to the section number.
Your comments must refer directly to anything you have quoted either from an act of parliament or anything the scammers have put in their WS

I might have used the word "specific" in my post but the actual word in S43 of the Act word is "explicit". You need to ensure what you are saying is exactly what the Act says. You must be able to understand it and walk a judge through it.

This is meant to be constructive criticism. I think you are actually doing very well. Keep it up. You are now doing tweaks, not starting from scratch.

Have a break, have a brew, then come back and go over it again.

Grimghast

Thanks Fruitcake your constructive criticism is much appreciated  I've taken my WS down for now while I ammend it again probably tomorrow morning now, but I really appreciate your time and help 

Fruitcake

You need to include this from one of my previous posts as it ties in with the signature requirements of the Companies Act 2006. It backs up your assertions that the contract fails the requirements of the Act.

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."

Grimghast

Thanks Fruitcake I see your a bit of a night owl lol, I'm more of an early bird so here's the link to the latest version of my WS taking on board I think every thing you have mentioned.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l80td245y4qdb0j/My WS edited.pdf?dl=0
Let me know what you think and if theres anything else that needs adding.
Thanks again for your help 

Grimghast

Fruitcake said:

Double check the following on the contract.

It states that it runs for a fixed term of 36 months from the 5th of October 2015. I can't see anywhere a mention of a rolling contract or anything about a renewal after that date. If the date of the alleged event was after 4th October 2018, then the contract had ended.
If that is the case, then the scammers had no standing to issue charges after that date.

I can see mention of PCNs/charges but no mention of court claims. This means the scammers have no standing to issue court claims in their own name, nor did they ever have any standing, meaning the claim is vexatious. 

If correct, this all makes a lie of the paralegal's statement in para 17.

the alleged event took place in december 2016 so it's in the date of the contract, paragraph 3.5 mentions debt recovery and court action