Premier Parking County Court Defence

PChallenger

Fruitcake said:

It is a Witness Statement, not a statement of evidence. It doesn't include a statement of truth, which you must have.
You haven't shown us the exhibits to which you refer.
Exhibit numbers would normally be your initials followed by sequential numbers.
If your real name was P Challenger then your exhibit numbers would be PC01, PC02 etcetera.

You haven't pointed out the apparent difference in tariffs between the entrance sign, and the signs within the car park. (Tariffs in your para 4 compared with those in your para 5.) 



Please show us the claimant's WS asap. Only redact YOUR personal data. Upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here. Make sure it doesn't need a password or asks users to agree to have their personal data processed. Make sure it does not include other personal data such as holiday snaps, and is not in your real name.
Believe me it has happened!

Thanks @Fruitcake, I will share the redacted Claimant form ASAP

PChallenger

@Fruitcake and @Coupon-mad, this is the dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6smp0iq2igyokyd/WS Bundle (38 pages)_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Castle

Another "car crash" landowner agreement from Mr W in which "A Mir" is listed as the client rather than the company "A Mir & Co Ltd"; so the "contract" is personally with the Director not the company.

PChallenger

Castle said:

Another "car crash" landowner agreement from Mr W in which "A Mir" is listed as the client rather than the company "A Mir & Co Ltd"; so the "contract" is personally with the Director not the company.

Thanks @Castle, What can I say about this in my statement?

Fruitcake

Two days ago you said, 
"Good evening, I received the witness statement 2 days ago and the Land owner's name is A. MIR & CO. LIMITED."

This is not correct. The PSA says the client is A Mir (an individual) not A MIR & Co Ltd (a company). The PSA says that A MIR has been authorised by the landowner to act on their behalf.
However, the landowner hasn't been identified in the WS or any documents supplied, and there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner to A Mir permitting them to form a contract with the PPC, or with the PPC allowing them to operate on the site.

In other words, no proof has been provided by the PPC that the client has ever been authorised by the landowner to act on their behalf.

Do you know who the landowner is? The council may have a lust of who pays the non-domestic business rates for that address. A definitive answer can be purchased from the Land Registry for about £3, but I'm not sure you have time to do that now.

You should state that the landowner has nor been identified, and no contract with or flowing from the landowner has been provided by the PPC. You should therefore aver that (Mr) A Mir has not been authorised to act on behalf of the landowner and no contract can therefore the PPC do not have landowner authority to operate on the site. You should require the PPC to prove that the contrary is true.

This is a generic piece I knocked up a while ago about contracts and how they must comply with the Companies Act. Have a look and pick out and modify the parts that are relevant to your case. Both sections of the CA 2006 are very short, so they are worth a quick read so you understand them if the judge asks you about them.

Companies Act 2006

 

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 43

 

 Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 44

 

For S43

 

43 Company contracts

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

(2) Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

 

1 (a) Rarely used

1 (b) Express authority means a statement from a person such as the owner, a company director or company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company, has the authority to form legally binding contracts with another party.

Implied authority would usually be found in the company’s Articles of Association or similar as held by Companies House stating that a person holding a specific title such as Regional Manger or Property Manager has authority, or a person specifically named by the owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company has authority.

  

For S44

 

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because the neither party has affixed its common seal, it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

 

This case might be of some use as well.

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

This applies in your case because Abid Mir is not a director of the (unidentified) landowner.

Not_A_Hope

PChallenger - it is a bit late but you might want to edit your very first post to redact your personal details from the evidence you attached. Similar your Reg no. is visible on the ticket receipt in the third post.

PChallenger

Good afternoon all,

I was in court today at Kingston (London )for 3 hours and I am happy to say the Judge ruled in my favour and I will be compensated too.


I want to thank everyone on this platform, I appreciate all the support.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Yay, at last!  Well done.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Can you give us a 'court report' of whether it was face to face, who turned up for the Claimants, what did the Judge say? What point or evidence won it?

Did you have to say much, did the rep look miffed?

PChallenger

Coupon-mad said:

Yay, at last!  Well done.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Can you give us a 'court report' of whether it was face to face, who turned up for the Claimants, what did the Judge say? What point or evidence won it?

Did you have to say much, did the rep look miffed?

Coupon-mad said:

Yay, at last!  Well done.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Can you give us a 'court report' of whether it was face to face, who turned up for the Claimants, what did the Judge say? What point or evidence won it?

Did you have to say much, did the rep look miffed?

Thank you, the case was heard face to face from 10:15 am till past 1 pm today. No court report yet, and this is my summary. A legal counsel from the DCB the Legal. The main contention was if there is a contract, also what constitutes acceptance. The sign on the entrance shows 20 pence(1 hour) and 2:40 pence (all day). 

The second point was the sign that stated

1 hour = 20 pence
2 hours = 40 pence


12 hours = £3:20 
Up to 24 hours = £3:50

The claimant stated that up to 1 hour = 20 p....was displayed on the payment machine. The Judge asked if I saw this on the day I said I could not recollect and it's not there.

The counsel crossed examine why I paid £1 and I answered, I worked with the NHS and had an hour meeting and it could take close to 30 minutes to walk. Also to avoid getting fine (but here we are).  He was trying to prove that up to 1 is not the same as per hour. And my response was in the UK, we go to shop for a specific price. Also per hour, or litre is generally used, hence reason why I used per hour in my defence.


Section 69 CRA 2015 was heavily relied upon here.  The Judge, agreed with the CRA interpretation to support my view that any other person would have paid £1:20 for 6 hours until 12 hours where the price changed. The counsel talked down on me with my response on the calculation and my assumption of the hourly parking rate and was told off by the Judge.

I followed all the guidance from the forum and let the Judge and counsel discuss legal terms and listened. The counsel introduced another cases to support there view and we were asked to go and read but I couldn't go further and request that the Judge decide using the fact of the matter.

He then asked the counsel if he has any defence for the CRA 2015 but the counsel has nothing to say.

In deciding the compensation or counter claim he uses the BEAVIS case.

Long story short, there was a contract when I made payment but ticket is merely a receipt but the signs (entrance, around the car park and by the machine differs). Therefore expired period means nothing.

CRA 69,2015 won the case because of the ambiguity that could means the operator will take advantage of this and the reason why we are here today.


I hope this helps

Snakes_Belly

Well done

So basically WW was trying to confuse with ambiguous signage. It's a change from disappearing pound coins. 

That car park looks like the one that worcestermum also received a PCN from WW.  It looks like the flooded car park in the Jewellery Quarter.