Help/Advice needed regarding PCN

Fruitcake

I'll have a more detailed look later, but a few quick points for now.

The stock images show different tariffs on the pay machine to those on the actual machines and signs at the location. This is only minor, but you should mention that the WS has been signed under a statement of truth yet the stock images are misleading and not a true depiction of what is actually present.

The name/signature on the letter/email from the client to the scammers is illegible, and there appears to be a question mark in its place. If you can read it on the original, please post it here so it can be checked against Companies House records.
More importantly, there is no copy of the alleged contract so no proof there ever was one, when it allegedly started, or whether it was in force at the time of the alleged event.
A contract must comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 Section 43 or Section 44.

Have a look at this thread by Grimghast. Start at the last page and open the link in their post from the 13th of Feb at 1.11. Look for the Paragraph 10 headed Landowner Contract in that poster's WS about the contract/Companies Act requirements as they are very relevant. 

VCS LBC advice needed, updated to allocated to small claims track - Page 13 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Hot_chocolate20

Fruitcake said:

I'll have a more detailed look later, but a few quick points for now.

The stock images show different tariffs on the pay machine to those on the actual machines and signs at the location. This is only minor, but you should mention that the WS has been signed under a statement of truth yet the stock images are misleading and not a true depiction of what is actually present.

The name/signature on the letter/email from the client to the scammers is illegible, and there appears to be a question mark in its place. If you can read it on the original, please post it here so it can be checked against Companies House records.
More importantly, there is no copy of the alleged contract so no proof there ever was one, when it allegedly started, or whether it was in force at the time of the alleged event.
A contract must comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 Section 43 or Section 44.

Have a look at this thread by Grimghast. Start at the last page and open the link in their post from the 13th of Feb at 1.11. Look for the Paragraph 10 headed Landowner Contract in that poster's WS about the contract/Companies Act requirements as they are very relevant. 

VCS LBC advice needed, updated to allocated to small claims track - Page 13 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

 

Thanks @fruitcake and duly noted re the signs, it's something I brought up in my WS, that and some other baseless accusations made with 0 evidence to support them.

 Re the signature on the poor quality letter from the client to the scammers, the signature says "J Sean" I've just checked CH and there is no Jsean listed as a Director or Comp secretary

 Great points re there being no copy of the alleged contract, I brought that up as well.

 Thanks for taking the time to briefly look at it - it's much appreciated.

 Will have a look at the link you sent 👍

Fruitcake

Good work on checking CH records. To your comment about J Sean not being a Director or Company Secretary, I would add, "nor a person with significant interest in the company" just in case the scammers try to claim he is the company owner or a senior shareholder of the company.

S43 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a person forming a "simple contract" to have express or implied authority to sign on its behalf.
S43 of the Act requires two authorised people from each party to sign in order that the document can be validly executed.
This is covered in the link to Grimghast's thread as well as a comment from a judge in another case about one of the signatories not being able to sign a contract on behalf of a company because they were not a directory of the company.

In Grimghast's case, there was a contract. In your case one has not been provided. It is reasonable for "the man on the Clapham omnibus" to believe that if there is/was a contract in existence, a copy of it would have been provided to you and the court. The fact that one has not been produced in evidence implies none ever existed, nor is there any suggestion how long an alleged contract might run.
In addition, the letter only mentions that Bank Park may issue parking charge notices. There is no express or implied right or authorisation for the scammers to issue court claims in their own name. 

Hot_chocolate20

Fruitcake said:

Good work on checking CH records. To your comment about J Sean not being a Director or Company Secretary, I would add, "nor a person with significant interest in the company" just in case the scammers try to claim he is the company owner or a senior shareholder of the company.

S43 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a person forming a "simple contract" to have express or implied authority to sign on its behalf.
S43 of the Act requires two authorised people from each party to sign in order that the document can be validly executed.
This is covered in the link to Grimghast's thread as well as a comment from a judge in another case about one of the signatories not being able to sign a contract on behalf of a company because they were not a directory of the company.

In Grimghast's case, there was a contract. In your case one has not been provided. It is reasonable for "the man on the Clapham omnibus" to believe that if there is/was a contract in existence, a copy of it would have been provided to you and the court. The fact that one has not been produced in evidence implies none ever existed, nor is there any suggestion how long an alleged contract might run.
In addition, the letter only mentions that Bank Park may issue parking charge notices. There is no express or implied right or authorisation for the scammers to issue court claims in their own name. 

Thanks@ fruitcake, very helpful. I've indeed taken the time to read the info in pp10 of the link that you enclosed earlier 👍

 Yes I am of the same opinion that if a contract existed then one would have been produced. 

 The pre-hearing material produced by the court explicitly mentions that no evidence would be considered by the court if it wasn't provided by either party 28 days before the hearing.

May I ask, what will happen on the hearing day itself? Will the judge go through both parties' WS and accompanying evidence and make a decision?

Or will the judge give us an opportunity to comment on one another's WS?

KeithP

Hot_chocolate20 said:

Fruitcake said:

Good work on checking CH records. To your comment about J Sean not being a Director or Company Secretary, I would add, "nor a person with significant interest in the company" just in case the scammers try to claim he is the company owner or a senior shareholder of the company.

S43 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a person forming a "simple contract" to have express or implied authority to sign on its behalf.
S43 of the Act requires two authorised people from each party to sign in order that the document can be validly executed.
This is covered in the link to Grimghast's thread as well as a comment from a judge in another case about one of the signatories not being able to sign a contract on behalf of a company because they were not a directory of the company.

In Grimghast's case, there was a contract. In your case one has not been provided. It is reasonable for "the man on the Clapham omnibus" to believe that if there is/was a contract in existence, a copy of it would have been provided to you and the court. The fact that one has not been produced in evidence implies none ever existed, nor is there any suggestion how long an alleged contract might run.
In addition, the letter only mentions that Bank Park may issue parking charge notices. There is no express or implied right or authorisation for the scammers to issue court claims in their own name. 

May I ask, what will happen on the hearing day itself? Will the judge go through both parties' WS and accompanying evidence and make a decision?

Or will the judge give us an opportunity to comment on one another's WS?

Looks like you need to read Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from the second post of the NEWBIES thread. All is explained there.

Ralph-y

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

Ralph

D_P_Dance

There are videos on the internet about CC cases, try googling some.  

nosferatu1001

It depends on what the judge wants. It's not your control.  

You'd ask the question of the court, if the court doesn't ask it themselves 

Hot_chocolate20

Could someone be so kind to post a link to the Newbies thread, I'm looking for bargepole's 'what happens next' thread.
I wanted to double-check whether the Cs are responsible for sending the 'electronic bundle'
Note: I have already sent my WS and Defence to both the court and the Cs solicitor via email. My hearing will be conducted via MS teams
Please see below order received last Wendnesday - thanks

Le_Kirk

Twelve pages of thread and you don't know where the NEWBIE sticky is to be found!  Go to the first page of the forum and it is one of the first five announcements and to be sure it stands out "Announcement" is shaded in a horrible shade of pink!