BW Legal - Small Claims Court stage

henrik777

Nameless said:

thank you - i realised my mistake I am finalising my WS - today ai received their WS and they have casually lied - they have submitted a contract for other bays they manage in that area. Basically there are two sets of bays in that area - they manage both but for 2 different organisations. They are using this to prove that they have permission to issue the PCN in my case. 

They do not have a contract with my organisation thats gives them permission to manage parking specifically in that area. I am trying to get hold of the land deed diagrams that shows who the actual owners are of the parking bays I parked in.

Also, they don't have any proof of the specific bays they have control of in that area. 

Any advice will be appreciated.


attached is the contract they have added to their WS.

If they have submitted evidence that doesn't show they the area in which the vehicle was parked then how are they to make the case there could possibly be a contract between the driver and themselves ?

What area did you cover ?

This bit.

Where was the vehicle parked ?

Not this bit.

Next.

Nameless

Coupon-mad said:

In #2 you have the word 'fine'.   Remove that, it was never and still isn't a fine or penalty!  It was a parking charge notice (an invoice).

#5 is confusing and I think scrap it and instead talk about where they have referenced it as an exhibit in their WS (you are allowed to respond to their WS as you got it first).  Refer to that exhibit and explain what's wrong with their evidence at #5 instead.

You then need to add the things I mentioned.

And don't use the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby.   

Look at the more recent WS example by @jrhys, and copy the style of that instead - it uses Excel v Wilkinson to explain why PPCs can't add false sums that they haven't expended, and represent double recovery for sending the letter chain that the parking charge already has to cover (as the Beavis case says).

Thank you - all this is now done - just struggling to find @jrhys WS - can anyone kindly point me to it please.

Thank you

Nameless

Nameless said:

Coupon-mad said:

In #2 you have the word 'fine'.   Remove that, it was never and still isn't a fine or penalty!  It was a parking charge notice (an invoice).

#5 is confusing and I think scrap it and instead talk about where they have referenced it as an exhibit in their WS (you are allowed to respond to their WS as you got it first).  Refer to that exhibit and explain what's wrong with their evidence at #5 instead.

You then need to add the things I mentioned.

And don't use the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby.   

Look at the more recent WS example by @jrhys, and copy the style of that instead - it uses Excel v Wilkinson to explain why PPCs can't add false sums that they haven't expended, and represent double recovery for sending the letter chain that the parking charge already has to cover (as the Beavis case says).

Thank you - all this is now done - just struggling to find @jrhys WS - can anyone kindly point me to it please.

Thank you

found it guys: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78320703#Comment_78320703

Nameless

Coupon-mad said:

In #2 you have the word 'fine'.   Remove that, it was never and still isn't a fine or penalty!  It was a parking charge notice (an invoice).

#5 is confusing and I think scrap it and instead talk about where they have referenced it as an exhibit in their WS (you are allowed to respond to their WS as you got it first).  Refer to that exhibit and explain what's wrong with their evidence at #5 instead.

You then need to add the things I mentioned.

And don't use the Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby.   

Look at the more recent WS example by @jrhys, and copy the style of that instead - it uses Excel v Wilkinson to explain why PPCs can't add false sums that they haven't expended, and represent double recovery for sending the letter chain that the parking charge already has to cover (as the Beavis case says).

Hi All,

I believe I have incorporated all the feedback into the WS - the latest version is here: https://pdf.ac/a4dZn
I have not mentioned anything about the the company being dissolved or setup recently etc as I think the actual company exists.
I will be sending it off today - so any last min feedback will be appreciated.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

If you haven't mentioned this then you have absolutely missed a very important point:

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).
What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?

They cannot have imagined in 2017 that 'BlockNet' was going to LATER become a Limited company.    This makes it a different type of entity and calls into question how on earth a document that is purported to have been signed in 2017, actually was signed then, at a time when the signatory firm was not incorporated and there is also no evidence of any authority actually flowing from the landowner (BlockNet - or 'BlockNet Ltd' not being the landowner).  Attach a Land Registry capture of who is the landowner, costs about £3.50 online I think.  Add that to your costs assessment.

Nameless

Coupon-mad said:

If you haven't mentioned this then you have absolutely missed a very important point:

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).
What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?

They cannot have imagined in 2017 that 'BlockNet' was going to LATER become a Limited company.    This makes it a different type of entity and calls into question how on earth a document that is purported to have been signed in 2017, actually was signed then, at a time when the signatory firm was not incorporated and there is also no evidence of any authority actually flowing from the landowner (BlockNet - or 'BlockNet Ltd' not being the landowner).  Attach a Land Registry capture of who is the landowner, costs about £3.50 online I think.  Add that to your costs assessment.

Ok will incorporate that - the address from companies house for Bloknet is different to the one on the contract. 

Also what does C/O stand for?

Thanks

KeithP

Nameless said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you haven't mentioned this then you have absolutely missed a very important point:

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).
What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?

They cannot have imagined in 2017 that 'BlockNet' was going to LATER become a Limited company.    This makes it a different type of entity and calls into question how on earth a document that is purported to have been signed in 2017, actually was signed then, at a time when the signatory firm was not incorporated and there is also no evidence of any authority actually flowing from the landowner (BlockNet - or 'BlockNet Ltd' not being the landowner).  Attach a Land Registry capture of who is the landowner, costs about £3.50 online I think.  Add that to your costs assessment.

Also what does C/O stand for?

In what context?
I've looked back over the last few pages of your thread and didn't spot it.
Help us to help you. 

Nameless

KeithP said:

Nameless said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you haven't mentioned this then you have absolutely missed a very important point:

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).
What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?

They cannot have imagined in 2017 that 'BlockNet' was going to LATER become a Limited company.    This makes it a different type of entity and calls into question how on earth a document that is purported to have been signed in 2017, actually was signed then, at a time when the signatory firm was not incorporated and there is also no evidence of any authority actually flowing from the landowner (BlockNet - or 'BlockNet Ltd' not being the landowner).  Attach a Land Registry capture of who is the landowner, costs about £3.50 online I think.  Add that to your costs assessment.

Also what does C/O stand for?

In what context?
I've looked back over the last few pages of your thread and didn't spot it.
Help us to help you. 

Sorry, in the contract its states 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd C/O Blocknet Ltd. 

KeithP

Nameless said:

KeithP said:

Nameless said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you haven't mentioned this then you have absolutely missed a very important point:

I think the "contract" is supposed to be between PPM and 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd which actually exists, (Company number 07856755).
What's more interesting is that BlockNet Limited, (Company number 11852765), wasn't incorporated until 28th February 2019; more than a year after the "contract" was signed...some "Crystal Ball" unless the dates on the "contract" are wrong?

They cannot have imagined in 2017 that 'BlockNet' was going to LATER become a Limited company.    This makes it a different type of entity and calls into question how on earth a document that is purported to have been signed in 2017, actually was signed then, at a time when the signatory firm was not incorporated and there is also no evidence of any authority actually flowing from the landowner (BlockNet - or 'BlockNet Ltd' not being the landowner).  Attach a Land Registry capture of who is the landowner, costs about £3.50 online I think.  Add that to your costs assessment.

Also what does C/O stand for?

In what context?
I've looked back over the last few pages of your thread and didn't spot it.
Help us to help you. 

Sorry, in the contract its states 17-19 Plumbers Row Freehold Ltd C/O Blocknet Ltd. 

C/O = Care Of.

Nameless

Ah ok thanks - makes sense