Gloucester Whittle Square PCM/Gladstone (UPDATE 14/04/2021 Won in Court)

rajon

Umkomaas said:

Umkomaas said:

It possibly makes it out of date. Whether it makes it void is a question to make in your WS to get the Judge's view. PCM UK Ltd left the BPA years ago. I'm on my mobile now but I look later once home to give you the approx date. 

Joined the IPC on 1 April 2014, one of the first to abandon the BPA ship. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160710144855/https://theipc.info/aos-members/p

thank you i will bring this point up in my WS.

rajon

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1b69suaiqi8ctw/gladstones_ws_redacted_copy.pdf?dl=0 i have attached a drop box link with a scanned and redacted copy of Gladstone's/PCM ltd WS

Jenni_D

Redacted ... I can't check at the moment but what have YOU redacted? (Hopefully you've only redacted anything that identifies YOU. If you've redacted any of THEIR details then please try again).

rajon

Jenni_D said:

Redacted ... I can't check at the moment but what have YOU redacted? (Hopefully you've only redacted anything that identifies YOU. If you've redacted any of THEIR details then please try again).

claim number, my name, my number plate, date of incident. my address.

Fruitcake

The redactions look okay to me at a quick glance, but the date of alleged event may be useful depending on whether or not the driver's identity has been revealed, and the NTK was not PoFA compliant.
Personally I see no advantage in redacting the date of the alleged event, but it may not matter either way.

The alleged contract is a pile of pants, so I'll go into more detail once I have had a nose around Companies House.
What I can say is that the contract is not with the landowner nor has it been signed in accordance with the strict requirements of Section 43 and/or Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Once again we have a statement of truth saying "The Claimant believes" whereas in fact the legal signing the WS should state "I believe ..."
The claimant is a company so is not capable of believing anything. This should be mentioned in the WS and brought to the attention of the judge as a preliminary matter before the hearing itself begins.

rajon

rajon said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1b69suaiqi8ctw/gladstones_ws_redacted_copy.pdf?dl=0 i have attached a drop box link with a scanned and redacted copy of Gladstone's/PCM ltd WS

I have taken a recent photo of the site entrance and the signage which they show in their WS is completely faded now. So they effectively have no signage on the entrance of their private land.

nosferatu1001

Fab photo to include. How close is this date to the material date? 

rajon

Fruitcake said:

The redactions look okay to me at a quick glance, but the date of alleged event may be useful depending on whether or not the driver's identity has been revealed, and the NTK was not PoFA compliant.
Personally I see no advantage in redacting the date of the alleged event, but it may not matter either way.

The alleged contract is a pile of pants, so I'll go into more detail once I have had a nose around Companies House.
What I can say is that the contract is not with the landowner nor has it been signed in accordance with the strict requirements of Section 43 and/or Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Once again we have a statement of truth saying "The Claimant believes" whereas in fact the legal signing the WS should state "I believe ..."
The claimant is a company so is not capable of believing anything. This should be mentioned in the WS and brought to the attention of the judge as a preliminary matter before the hearing itself begins.

In my defence I have stated I was the driver on the day of the offence. I assumed in my defence to the court i had to state whether i was the driver at the time or not. I can upload another version showing the date. What makes the NTK non PoFa compliant?

nosferatu1001

Irrelevant if you have saidf who the driver was. Ignore anything to do with POFA

Fruitcake

If you admitted being the driver then whether or not the NTK was PoFA compliant is irrelevant. The only reason for telling us the date would be if was after the date the scammers joined the IPC because the alleged contract only mentions the BPA AoS.