DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

Fruitcake

Ref your para 20. Have a look at Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short. 

S43 concerns the authorisation of a Simple Contract. Signatories must have express or implied authority to form a contract.
(My interpretation)
Express means an owner or officer of the company.
Implied means a position (job description) stated by someone with express authority, or included in company documentation such as its Articles of Association.

S44 concerns the valid execution of documents. Such documents must be signed by two authorised signatories from each party. Authorised signatories are defined by S44 of the Act as any two from directors or company secretaries, or a director and witness. 

Ref para 21, name the signatories and state that according to Companies House records, they have never been authorised signatories according to the CA 2006, and therefore have never had express or implied authority to sign a contract with another party.

Johnersh

The contract is seemingly not with the company. Nothing says it is.

I'd stop short of the type of challenge @Coupon-mad suggests as it is tantamount to a written allegation of fraud.  Since you're committed to trial, those would be points I'd raise at the hearing and it's precisely why you asked WW to attend. 

Coupon-mad

Ok I take that steer from @Johnersh.

houndsoflove

WS and email sent, so now to create the crib notes and brush up on everything in readiness.

Thanks to everyone for your help and support.

houndsoflove

Evening all

Just preparing my crib sheet for the hearing scheduled this week.  As time will be short at the hearing I have gone for the following:

1.  Landowner Agreement - Change of ownership, doesn’t comply with Companies Act, littered with errors and questionable claimant signature.
2.  Claimant hasn’t provided evidence regards maintenance of PDT machine - Breach of CRA, Sir Greg Knight
3.  Inadequate/Poor signage - Claimant has only provided a stock image, Entrance signage does not comply with IPC Code, Plan provided in claimants WS is different to that at time of PCN.
4.  Abuse of process
5.  Costs

Would welcome any other suggestions or pointers, such as whether I should be discussing that the claimant WS refers to displaying a valid permit when it was pay and display to cast doubt on the validity of the claimants argument.

Thanks in advance 👍🏻😃

Coupon-mad

Time will be short? 

If it's only a 30 minute hearing then it's a waste of time initial Directions Hearing to try to bully you into settling.  They are run by the more new and clueless Judges who don't know about parking cases and are tasked to try to make YOU pay something to take it out of the court system.  So if you only have a 30 minute hearing scheduled then that's what it will be.   Just say no.

houndsoflove

It is a 30 min hearing, I thought it was short but assumed that time constraints on the courts due to backlogs had led to this. I take it I won’t be seeing the back of it this week then as I had hoped.

Coupon-mad

Nope, that's a stupid Directions Hearing - glorified mediation. 

Don't be upset if the Judge says you have no defence,  You do.  He/she will ask for the main issues and hopefully should have read your WS and evidence, but their job is to ask about a possible settlement, which is not an option for you!

Snakes_Belly

There are numerous issues with this operator's car parks. The ticket machines are frequently either out of order or calibrated incorrectly. I hope that the effects of the pandemic and the new CoP see this business off.

There are a couple of posters who would probably write you a short WS regarding the failure of this operator's ticket machines in Birmingham. It is probably too late for the current WS but could be added to your WS for the final hearing.

D_P_Dance

If ticket machines are incorrectly calibrated the matter should be reported to Trading Standards, there may be criminality involved.