UK CPM/Gladstones Case - Jack Chapman threads - Student in need of help!

Coupon-mad

Hamman27 said:

I have attached the landowner contract. nosferatu1001 said:

Clearly your deadline cannot be a sunday. It is not a working day. 

I have until Sunday to send it because of work commitments but you are correct, the deadline is Monday at 2pm (14 days before the hearing).

You need to point out the redacted contract means it's impossible to tell who signed this and it looks suspiciously like it was created by UKCPM recently, not in 2013.  In 2013 there was only one ATA, the BPA (their current Trade Body the IPC didn't exist, it was not launched late 2013).  Why then, does it not refer to the BPA Code of Practice, and why does it look exactly like others seen created by UKCPM more recently?

Castle

Ringley Ltd are just the Managing Agent; they won't be the landowner.

Fruitcake

Do the scammers know the identity of the driver, because the dodgy contract appears to only allow them to recover money from the driver, not the keeper.

As for the redactions, have a look at this thread where the Court of Appeal said that redactions in disclosure are unacceptable.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6175896/redactions-in-disclosure/p1

An appeal court decision is persuasive on the lower courts.

Do you know who the landowner actually is?

The Companies Act 2006 Section 44 requires two authorised signatures from each party for the contract to be valid. Each signatory must either be a director or a company secretary. In the alternative, a director can sign on their own but it must be witnessed.
The names, signatures, and position in the company have all been redacted, so there is absolutely no proof either signatory works for the landowner in any capacity.

Johnersh

As set out above by @Fruitcake the execution of a contract is central to its validity. There is no confidentiality reason to redact - these should be company officers who appear on a public register. If a director has not authorised the contract, we need to know on what basis the parties have authority to bind one another.

See also -https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/01/24/redacting-documents-may-cause-enquiries-to-be-made-and-explanations-may-need-to-be-given/

Do the signs mirror the terms of the contract? 

Johnersh

Incidentally I note that UKCPM has just been sold to the geezers that own Premier Park, hence the change of registered office address, reflected in Chapman's statement. 

D_P_Dance

I know that, that is not the point, The MP may well have received other complaints about this company from constituents whom he/she can help.

You are not thinking this through.

Hamman27

Hi all, just an update. I believe that Ringley Ltd are the proprietor of the site but how can I confirm this?

The agreement wasn't created until the end of 2013, so I believe failing to mention the BPA is plausible.

The redactions are something I could raise and ask for disclosure from Gladstone's. I've just had a friend visit the area and a new parking company - Parking Control Management Limited has taken over from UKCPM - is this of any significance? Are UKCPM still able to pursue a claim if the contract has expired? Or is this irrelevant if the parking happened whilst the contract was still active?

At present, in my witness statement, I am focusing on the fact that Jack Chapman is claiming that there signs at the entrance and road markings to show you are entering private land. Both of which are untrue. There is no marking to show that one half of the road is public and the other private. Also, the site map that Gladstone's have provided, showing all the signs in the area, is incorrect. The picture they have sent of one of the signs is not even on that map clearly showing that the map is inaccurate.

NB I will raise all the legal issues in the skeleton argument.

Le_Kirk

Hamman27 said:

Hi all, just an update. I believe that Ringley Ltd are the proprietor of the site but how can I confirm this?

Land Registry, Companies House or local council to see who pays the non-domestic business rates.

henrik777

Paragraph 9.

The claimants own witness. "therefore no parking was allowed"

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

Paragraph 94. The introduction.

"It was common ground before the Court of Appeal, and is common ground in this court, that on the facts which we have just summarised there was a contract between Mr Beavis and ParkingEye."


Foot shot.

Johnersh

It'd be helpful to see the WS exhibits. If the sign doesn't offer parking or the contract cannot be performed then there is no valid contract. 

Some observations... 
OK, so page 1 redacts the address of Ukcpm. I know the address is under that, because lots of other Ukcpm contracts are floating around this forum. Why redact an address that is public record and which is typed on the face of the agreement. Odd.

I note, with interest that the current address of Ukcpm (and presumably their letterhead) has recently changed.

I note that both parties have endorsed the contract on the same date, which is unusual of itself. The fact that it is endorsed on a Sunday in December 2013 is, well, unusual. 

Do we also accept that all elements of the contract, sign instalation, permit issue, enforcement also began on a non-working day?  Or that the parties would have selected that day?