Fighting a UKCPM CCJ Help

sofa_searcher

 "It is the driver’s responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle. The signage on site is the contractual document."
Is this a valid argument by the claimant? 

nosferatu1001

It is not an argument but a statement they have made. It is accurate, but only if the signage is brought to their attention, as an intial statement - theyre responsible for making the signs obvious, see Vine v Waltham Forest, which PPC slove to quote out of context! 

Fruitcake

I've only just found this thread again. Is there any reason why the name of the site has been redacted on the alleged contract you posted back in December?

Please post the whole thing again, and as I previously asked, only redact your personal data.

Please also answer the question that Coupon-mad asked you, giving us the yes or no answer requested by nosferatu.

You are making this much harder for us than is necessary.

Fruitcake

With regards to the redactions by the scammers, have a look at this thread regarding redactions in disclosure, and the Hancock vs Promontoria case.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Note that this was an appeal court judgment and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts.

Also have a look at Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

S43 refers to simple contracts where authorisation to sign a contract must be by someone with explicit or implied authority.
Explicit would be an officer of the company, or specifically named by an officer of the company.
Implied would be a position (job) title being given by an officer of the company to sign on behalf of the company.

S44 requires two authorised signatories from both parties to sign a document for it to be lawfully executed. An officer of the company is defined as being a director, or a company secretary, or a director and witness.

Johnersh

Sooo the contract (which is the document upon which they derive their entitlement to bring the claim) is

1.signed *after* the parking event,
2. is apparently with a company that had been dissolved at the point it was signed by the ppc (or at the very least is ambiguous as to which company it is with)
3. may not strictly require the display of a permit at all.
4. Suggests the ppc were required to supply permits prior to enforcement (which in the o/p's case they did not) 

Hard to see how the o/p can be done for breach of contract if the ppc has failed in respect of their own obligation - assuming that is that there was a contract. 

sofa_searcher

Fruitcake said:

I've only just found this thread again. Is there any reason why the name of the site has been redacted on the alleged contract you posted back in December?

Please post the whole thing again, and as I previously asked, only redact your personal data.

Please also answer the question that Coupon-mad asked you, giving us the yes or no answer requested by nosferatu.

You are making this much harder for us than is necessary.

Sorry I redacted the site address to maintain some anonymity. See the attached where I have made clear what I redacted, which was only the site address which i can confirm is correct.
Also, i've just had a dispute hearing with the Judge saying that my case isn't strong and he advised that I should accept the offer of £175 instead of going to the settlement hearing and paying the full £280. 
I accepted the offer but this is dependent on the claimant accepting it as they didn't have an offer on hand.

sofa_searcher

Fruitcake said:

With regards to the redactions by the scammers, have a look at this thread regarding redactions in disclosure, and the Hancock vs Promontoria case.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Note that this was an appeal court judgment and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts.

Also have a look at Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

S43 refers to simple contracts where authorisation to sign a contract must be by someone with explicit or implied authority.
Explicit would be an officer of the company, or specifically named by an officer of the company.
Implied would be a position (job) title being given by an officer of the company to sign on behalf of the company.

S44 requires two authorised signatories from both parties to sign a document for it to be lawfully executed. An officer of the company is defined as being a director, or a company secretary, or a director and witness.

Johnersh said:

Sooo the contract (which is the document upon which they derive their entitlement to bring the claim) is

1.signed *after* the parking event,
2. is apparently with a company that had been dissolved at the point it was signed by the ppc (or at the very least is ambiguous as to which company it is with)
3. may not strictly require the display of a permit at all.
4. Suggests the ppc were required to supply permits prior to enforcement (which in the o/p's case they did not) 

Hard to see how the o/p can be done for breach of contract if the ppc has failed in respect of their own obligation - assuming that is that there was a contract. 

Below is their response to the landowner agreement. The statement that I was in possession of one of those permits is incorrect because the permit was for the previous PPC, UKCPS. According to that statement, If the permit was on display then I shouldn't have been given a ticket

Umkomaas

If the 'agreement' was 'made'  21/12/2017, how come the contract wasn't signed by both parties until (last signature) 21/12/2018, and presumably (but I'm not a contracts expert) not legally effective until this date - and months after the parking event?

EDIT TO ADD

Omnia Trinity were dissolved just one month after they signed that contract. So when UKCPM signed it, they were no longer operating. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08365954

Johnersh

Of course a contract can be formed without signatures - but where it was unsigned for such a protracted period (and the fact that there was later felt to be the need to sign one) begs the question as to what contract there was before it was signed. That is a question of fact and degree.

If the claimant wishes to prove there was a contract, they will have to prove that they did install signs, on which date, what they said and when permits were supplied.

I suspect that they *may* have done that, but it's not clear the routine template statement will be good enough. Further the o/p may well be able to demonstrate the failure to supply a permit. 

Castle

Umkomaas said:

If the 'agreement' was 'made'  21/12/2017, how come the contract wasn't signed by both parties until (last signature) 21/12/2018, and presumably (but I'm not a contracts expert) not legally effective until this date - and months after the parking event?

EDIT TO ADD

Omnia Trinity were dissolved just one month after they signed that contract. So when UKCPM signed it, they were no longer operating. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08365954

The company was dissolved by Voluntary strike off in July 2018 following an application in January 2018; and you can only apply if you haven't traded in the 3 months prior to the application.

So whoever signed the contract in June 2018 couldn't have had authority since it's a criminal offence to trade unless the strike off is withdrawn; which it wasn't.