Help! DEFENCE due

Jenni_D

Thanks. The letter is still not a contract though, so you may wish to push that point ... just because someone is saying the PPC have the rights stated doesn't mean they contracually do.

PS - love your forum name. 😂

Fruitcake

That letter is identical to the one in the thread below. Have a look at the comments I made about the lack of contract and how that fails both Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Help/Advice needed regarding PCN - Page 12 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

In a nutshell, if there was a contract between or flowing from the landowner, the average person (The man on the Clapham omnibus") would expect to see it. Whilst it might be reasonable to redact say, how much money is changing hands between the landowner and scammers, the proof that a contract actually exists, or existed at the time of the alleged event is crucial to the scammers case.
Any one can say, I have a contract, trust me, or say, I accept your contract, trust me, but without sight of said contract there is no proof one exists.

Not only that, but a contract signatory must have the authority from or flowing from the landowner to sign a legally binding contract.

The thread I have linked has links to other cases where I have explained in great detail that neither a random person called J Sear, nor a manager have such authority as defined by the Companies Act 2006.

The Truro case should also be mentioned where DJJ Middleton said that the person whose name was on the alleged contract because they are not a director of the owner. (This is linked from the thread above that I linked to).

nosferatu1001

In addition, it doesnt inlcde the Parking scheme details, so it is not proof of ANYTHING

Umkomaas

As above, there is no authority given in the letter by the landowner to the PPC to pursue charges through the courts.

Fruitcake

Umkomaas said:

As above, there is no authority given in the letter by the landowner to the PPC to pursue charges through the courts.

Quite so, but it needs explaining to the court/judge just how a contract cannot be formed by that letter, and why the signatory has no authority to do so either.

BaftyCrastard

Fruitcake said:

Umkomaas said:

As above, there is no authority given in the letter by the landowner to the PPC to pursue charges through the courts.

Quite so, but it needs explaining to the court/judge just how a contract cannot be formed by that letter, and why the signatory has no authority to do so either.

I don't know that the signatory doesn't have authority though do I?

Fruitcake

BaftyCrastard said:

Fruitcake said:

Umkomaas said:

As above, there is no authority given in the letter by the landowner to the PPC to pursue charges through the courts.

Quite so, but it needs explaining to the court/judge just how a contract cannot be formed by that letter, and why the signatory has no authority to do so either.

I don't know that the signatory doesn't have authority though do I?

Then obviously you haven't read the comments I made in the thread I linked, or the comments in the threads linked form there, that all tell you why the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act have not been met meaning that there is no valid contract, and also means that this J Sear has no authority to sign a contract.
Judge Middleton said the same thing in Truro County Court. His words and the case number are in or linked from the thread I pointed you to. 

S43 states the signature requirements for a simple contract to be formed, and I explained how this person by name or position does not have specific or implied authority according to that part of the Act.
S44 states the requirements for documents to be validly executed, and again I have explained why this J Sear person cannot validly execute documents.

BaftyCrastard

Fruitcake said:

Then obviously you haven't read the comments I made in the thread I linked, or the comments in the threads linked form there, that all tell you why the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act have not been met meaning that there is no valid contract, and also means that this J Sear has no authority to sign a contract.
Judge Middleton said the same thing in Truro County Court. His words and the case number are in or linked from the thread I pointed you to. 

S43 states the signature requirements for a simple contract to be formed, and I explained how this person by name or position does not have specific or implied authority according to that part of the Act.
S44 states the requirements for documents to be validly executed, and again I have explained why this J Sear person cannot validly execute documents.

Sorry @Fruitcake I've read through now and it's an excellent point that I've added to my S WS, thank you. 

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, a short S WS is all you need, make explijcit reference (para graph number!) to where the claimants rep has filed a statement stating signs x y z are in place, and point out that google SV from X date proves otherwise
You suggest hte reason the claimant has filed a misleading witness statement is an obvious one.

If I add images to my S WS will they be excluded from the hearing because of the proximity to the hearing date? I guess it's worth adding them anyway?

BaftyCrastard

Does anyone know much about the Chaplair Limited -v- Kumari [2015] case which the Claimant references at para 23, v.? It looks like it allows the Claimant to pursue contractual indemnity costs which exceed the amount previous protected by CPR 27.14. I'm not sure this is relevant in my case though because the Claimant would first have to win the case and secondly, the Claimant is trying to justify that the additional £60 isn't a double recovery but covers the costs incurred by pursuing the claim. They then have no justification for making me pay legal costs which they have applied to their claim i.e. court fee and legal representative's costs.

My understanding is that in the Chaplair Limited -v- Kumari case, the cost to pursue the claim exceeded what was recovered in the contractual rent/arrears therefore the Court of Appeals awarded the legal costs of £200, as they formed part of the lease contract. However Bank Park Management state on their signs that failure to pay the £100, then additional costs will be added, including any costs incurred through debt recovery action / court enforcement. The Chaplair Limited -v- Kumari case would therefore protect their right to the costs through debt recovery action / court enforcement (should they exceed CPR 27.14) but it doesn't have any relevance to the "additional costs will be added" part which is the £60 on top of the original £100 PCN. 

Hope that makes sense!

Fruitcake

I think your second paragraph answers your own question. 

Do you have time to post your WS for us to look over before you need to submit it? It would be advisable to do so if you have time.