Claim form received, please I need guidance!

Umkomaas

Have you redacted the WS?  Can we see it without redaction please (other than your personal data)?  Obviously you can't unredact their redactions, but we'd like to see as much of the WS as possible. 

The signage details in the photos of their signs on site are totally unreadable, are they any clearer in your copy?  The stock photo they've added doesn't prove anything related to the actual site. 

I haven't gone back through your entire thread, but at any stage have you identified the driver on the day?  Because their Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), in particular in relation to para 9(2)(f) where they forego their ability to hold the keeper liable by confirming in their warning that if the driver isn't identified, they will hold the driver liable!  Oops.

Check what a 9(2)(f) warning should really say, here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

pawless_patrol

Umkomaas said:

Have you redacted the WS?  Can we see it without redaction please (other than your personal data)?  Obviously you can't unredact their redactions, but we'd like to see as much of the WS as possible. 

The signage details in the photos of their signs on site are totally unreadable, are they any clearer in your copy?  The stock photo they've added doesn't prove anything related to the actual site. 

I haven't gone back through your entire thread, but at any stage have you identified the driver on the day?  Because their Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), in particular in relation to para 9(2)(f) where they forego their ability to hold the keeper liable by confirming in their warning that if the driver isn't identified, they will hold the driver liable!  Oops.

Check what a 9(2)(f) warning should really say, here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

All the redaction is mine. Wasn't sure whether it was safe to post the name of the BWL rep and also the contract has some requirement for confidentiality.
The photos on the paper copy I received are only slightly more readable that the scanned version but quite fuzzy anyway. Of course I can't know whether the copy they sent to the court look clearer.
Yes, I did identify the driver in my defence

Fruitcake

You were specifically asked to only redact YOUR personal data. 

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked for this yet posters still make redactions. It is tiresome, unnecessary, causes more work for the regulars, and could mean we miss something important that could otherwise help your case.
There is no guarantee of course, but it might be of some help for us to see the whole WS, especially the alleged contract/service agreement.

Do you know the identity of the landowner, as that is crucial to your case?

As for your comment, " ... also the contract has some requirement for confidentiality," the confidentiality requirement is aimed at the client named on the contract, not you.

If the scammers have made any redactions, please tell us.

pawless_patrol

Apologies, I think I was afraid I could disclose info that could get me into trouble. Here goes version 2:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fRld8EnCgzWr7gNKCFt-65yOYEOJnziV/view?usp=sharing

pawless_patrol

There were no redacted parts from the part of the claimant

Umkomaas

The paralegal, who has signed the Statement of Truth has only been employed by BWL since May 2018; your PCN dates from August 2017. So you need to check through her statements whether she purports to know anything first-hand, which would obviously be outside of her knowledge. 

'[Removed By Forum Team]', the contract signatory, has no company position appended to his name. Was he the cleaner, the maintenance man or a director?  Well, no, he wasn't a director of the company, so his capability to sign the contract seemingly doesn't exist in contract law. @Fruitcake has some very useful standard advice and guidance on who can legally sign contracts on behalf of corporate entities, and I'm sure he'll be along later to advise. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00223957/officers

pawless_patrol

Umkomaas said:

The paralegal, who has signed the Statement of Truth has only been employed by BWL since May 2018; your PCN dates from August 2017. So you need to check through her statements whether she purports to know anything first-hand, which would obviously be outside of her knowledge. 

'[Mark Read]', the contract signatory, has no company position appended to his name. Was he the cleaner, the maintenance man or a director?  Well, no, he wasn't a director of the company, so his capability to sign the contract seemingly doesn't exist in contract law. @Fruitcake has some very useful standard advice and guidance on who can legally sign contracts on behalf of corporate entities, and I'm sure he'll be along later to advise. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00223957/officers

Yes, I checked on companies house website and he was not the director at that time and doesn't appear as officer or anything else. That is part of my exhibits (the appointment of the real director at that time and the period he was active)

Fruitcake

Have a look at Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short, but you need to understand them to us the following with regards to the contract/service agreement.

According to Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006, a Simple Contract as defined by the Act must be signed by someone from each party having express or implied authority.
Express authority would be the owner(s), or an officer of the company such as a director, company secretary, or a person with significant interest in the company, or someone expressly named by the above.
Implied authority would be a position within the company named by the owner(s), or named by an officer of the company, or the named position would be included in the company's articles of association.

Mark Turner is not, nor has he ever been an officer of the Client, Wembley Park Limited. It is averred that he has neither express or implied authority to form a contract on behalf of the Client with a third party.

In addition, the document has not been validly executed in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 because it has not been signed by two authorised persons from each party. The Act defines authorised persons as a director or company secretary.

In case number F1DP92KF heard in the Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020, District Judge Simon Middleton found that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

My case is identical. [Remove by Forum Team] could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because he is not a director of the owner.

As far as I can tell, the scammers have not shown an image of the car when it was parked, nor marked the position on the plan/map to show where the car was allegedly parked, nor shown that there were any signs near where the car was allegedly parked within sight of the driver on entry, whilst driving through the car park, or while allegedly parked.

Umkomaas

Super post @Fruitcake. 👆

pawless_patrol

As far as I can tell, the scammers have not shown an image of the car when it was parked, nor marked the position on the plan/map to show where the car was allegedly parked, nor shown that there were any signs near where the car was allegedly parked within sight of the driver on entry, whilst driving through the car park, or while allegedly parked.

Thanks, Fruitcake, that paragraph nails it!
No, they haven't shown any image of the car while parked.