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

rajon

nosferatu1001 said:

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

unfortunately not close at all, it is a very recent photo. Im not sure if it will hold any weight because it was taken only last week. Would it be a decent point to make with lack of care of signage condition therefore IPC COP not being followed? or can i use it to say the signage wasn't clear on the day?

nosferatu1001

They only had to fololow it at the time of incident. It does show it is a single small sign, with what would have been lots of text right at an entrance way

rajon

Fruitcake said:

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.

the date was 14/11/2019.

Ralph-y

"unfortunately not close at all, it is a very recent photo. Im not sure if it will hold any weight because it was taken only last week. "

have you tries google street view ?

  1.    Drag and drop the yellow ‘Pegman’ onto the desired street. (To do this, left click on the yellow man at the bottom right of the map and, keeping the mouse button held down, drag him across the screen, only letting go when you are on top of the road or place you want to look at. If it doesn’t work for you the first time you will need to try again!).
 2.    When the man lands, the map changes to show you street imagery, and a dark grey box appears at the top left of the map.  Click the tiny clock symbol in the dark grey square – see screenshot below.
 3.    Use the slider that appears to go further back in time, then click on the small map above the slider. Street View will then show you historical views. You can change the year by clicking on the slider again. You can also navigate your way around Street View just as you would in a more up-to-date map.
 4.    To exit Street View, click the back (left) arrow in the original dark grey box.
 5.    N.B.Historic imagery isn’t available for everywhere in Street View.

Ralph

rajon

nosferatu1001 said:

They only had to fololow it at the time of incident. It does show it is a single small sign, with what would have been lots of text right at an entrance way

also that entrance is off a round about making it even more difficult to see.

rajon

Ralph-y said:

"unfortunately not close at all, it is a very recent photo. Im not sure if it will hold any weight because it was taken only last week. "

have you tries google street view ?

  1.    Drag and drop the yellow ‘Pegman’ onto the desired street. (To do this, left click on the yellow man at the bottom right of the map and, keeping the mouse button held down, drag him across the screen, only letting go when you are on top of the road or place you want to look at. If it doesn’t work for you the first time you will need to try again!).
 2.    When the man lands, the map changes to show you street imagery, and a dark grey box appears at the top left of the map.  Click the tiny clock symbol in the dark grey square – see screenshot below.
 3.    Use the slider that appears to go further back in time, then click on the small map above the slider. Street View will then show you historical views. You can change the year by clicking on the slider again. You can also navigate your way around Street View just as you would in a more up-to-date map.
 4.    To exit Street View, click the back (left) arrow in the original dark grey box.
 5.    N.B.Historic imagery isn’t available for everywhere in Street View.

Ralph

no luck, all latest photos dated Jul 2018. This is when the sign was still in good condition.

Fruitcake

With regards to the alleged contract, it is nothing of the sort.

It is not a contract with or flowing from the landowner. There is no contract between the landowner and MA authorising the latter to form a contract with an unregulated third party to operate on his land. The landowner has not been named, nor any indication that the landowner is even aware of such a contract or wishes a contract to be formed in his name.

It is on Parking Control Management UK headed paper from a Managing Agent merely saying said agent would be pleased to authorise a parking enforcement service. It is in affect a letter saying, yes we are willing to form a contract, but no such contract has been produced. Indeed there is no proof that such a contract ever existed, merely that the agent is willing to form one.
It is reasonable to assume that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would expect to see a copy of the contract were one to exist. Since one has not been produced, it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities no such contract ever existed.

The claimant's witness statement makes great mention that they are a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and that they operate in accordance with the IPC's Code of Practice (CoP).
However, the document purporting to be a contract specifically states that the claimant is and must be a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must operate in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice (CoP).
The fact that the claimant was not a member of the BPA, having left them and joined the IPC in 2015, some three or four years after the date of the document means that they are no longer acting in accordance with the BPA's CoP, and therefore in breach of the alleged contract they are attempting to enforce.
The document has two dates indicating an "original instruction" that has not been produced, and a new instruction. However, the alleged contract did not include or specify a contract or an enforcement start or end date. The claimant has provided no proof that any contract ever existed, nor a start date for the alleged contract, nor any proof that such an alleged contract was still in force seven years after the date of the new instruction when the alleged parking event occurred.
Neither is there any indication that Rapleys LLP was still the managing agent for the unnamed landowner at the time of the alleged parking event, nor indeed that the landowner had not changed.

In addition, the document purporting to be contract has not been signed in accordance with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Section 43 of the above Act.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

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.

The document purporting to be a contract is incapable of forming a contract in accordance with the above Act because: -

1 (a) The document has not been signed under either company's common seal.

1 (b) The claimant has not signed the document at all. 

The managing agent has not provided express authority because : - 

(i) the signatory has not been specifically authorised by an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, or person with significant interest in the company) to form a contract on its behalf.

(ii) the position of the signatory within the company (Associate property manager) has not been given implied authority by an officer of the company (as mentioned above) nor mentioned within documentation such as the company's Articles of Association.

2 It is reasonable to assume that any formalities required by law would include the authority to form a contract with another party.

Section 44 of the above Act.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

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 document purporting to be a contract has not been validly executed in accordance with the above Act because: -

(1) 

(a) The document has not been signed under either company's common seal.

(b) The claimant has not signed the document at all, nor in accordance with the provisions defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above Act.

(2) 

(a) The document has not been signed by two authorised signatories

(b) The document has not been signed by a directory and a witness to the signature

(3) (a) and (3) (b)

According to Companies House records for the managing agent, Rapleys Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Andrew Bayliss has never been an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significance in the company) and has therefore never been an authorised signatory as defined by the above Act.

The document has not been signed by an employee of the claimant, let alone an authorised signatory as defined by the above Act.

This case is similar to that heard by District Judge Simon Middleton at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020. In his judgment of that case, number F1DP92KF, he stated that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the agreement on behalf of the owner as she was not a director of the owner at the time."

I believe that in my case, Andrew Bayliss could not have signed a contract on behalf of the owner because he was not a director of the landowner nor an officer of the managing agent.

rajon

Fruitcake said:

With regards to the alleged contract, it is nothing of the sort.

It is not a contract with or flowing from the landowner. There is no contract between the landowner and MA authorising the latter to form a contract with an unregulated third party to operate on his land. The landowner has not been named, nor any indication that the landowner is even aware of such a contract or wishes a contract to be formed in his name.

It is on Parking Control Management UK headed paper from a Managing Agent merely saying said agent would be pleased to authorise a parking enforcement service. It is in affect a letter saying, yes we are willing to form a contract, but no such contract has been produced. Indeed there is no proof that such a contract ever existed, merely that the agent is willing to form one.
It is reasonable to assume that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would expect to see a copy of the contract were one to exist. Since one has not been produced, it is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities no such contract ever existed.

The claimant's witness statement makes great mention that they are a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and that they operate in accordance with the IPC's Code of Practice (CoP).
However, the document purporting to be a contract specifically states that the claimant is and must be a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must operate in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice (CoP).
The fact that the claimant was not a member of the BPA, having left them and joined the IPC in 2015, some three or four years after the date of the document means that they are no longer acting in accordance with the BPA's CoP, and therefore in breach of the alleged contract they are attempting to enforce.
The document has two dates indicating an "original instruction" that has not been produced, and a new instruction. However, the alleged contract did not include or specify a contract or an enforcement start or end date. The claimant has provided no proof that any contract ever existed, nor a start date for the alleged contract, nor any proof that such an alleged contract was still in force seven years after the date of the new instruction when the alleged parking event occurred.
Neither is there any indication that Rapleys LLP was still the managing agent for the unnamed landowner at the time of the alleged parking event, nor indeed that the landowner had not changed.

In addition, the document purporting to be contract has not been signed in accordance with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Section 43 of the above Act.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

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.

The document purporting to be a contract is incapable of forming a contract in accordance with the above Act because: -

1 (a) The document has not been signed under either company's common seal.

1 (b) The claimant has not signed the document at all. 

The managing agent has not provided express authority because : - 

(i) the signatory has not been specifically authorised by an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, or person with significant interest in the company) to form a contract on its behalf.

(ii) the position of the signatory within the company (Associate property manager) has not been given implied authority by an officer of the company (as mentioned above) nor mentioned within documentation such as the company's Articles of Association.

2 It is reasonable to assume that any formalities required by law would include the authority to form a contract with another party.

Section 44 of the above Act.

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

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 document purporting to be a contract has not been validly executed in accordance with the above Act because: -

(1) 

(a) The document has not been signed under either company's common seal.

(b) The claimant has not signed the document at all, nor in accordance with the provisions defined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above Act.

(2) 

(a) The document has not been signed by two authorised signatories

(b) The document has not been signed by a directory and a witness to the signature

(3) (a) and (3) (b)

According to Companies House records for the managing agent, Rapleys Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Andrew Bayliss has never been an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significance in the company) and has therefore never been an authorised signatory as defined by the above Act.

The document has not been signed by an employee of the claimant, let alone an authorised signatory as defined by the above Act.

This case is similar to that heard by District Judge Simon Middleton at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020. In his judgment of that case, number F1DP92KF, he stated that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the agreement on behalf of the owner as she was not a director of the owner at the time."

I believe that in my case, Andrew Bayliss could not have signed a contract on behalf of the owner because he was not a director of the landowner nor an officer of the managing agent.

amazing bit of work in ripping this "contact" a part. Thank you.

Umkomaas

The claimant's witness statement makes great mention that they are a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and that they operate in accordance with the IPC's Code of Practice (CoP).
However, the document purporting to be a contract specifically states that the claimant is and must be a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must operate in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice (CoP).

The Codes - neither of which is a 'creature of statute' (I like that!) - are materially different from each other.  You need to go through them both (the versions relevant at the time of the parking event, not the most recent) and highlight the big differences - appeal windows are certainly different. 

So even if the letter of agreement is accepted as a (quasi) contract, it is not possible for PCM UK to comply with their undertaking given in it. 

rajon

I just realised none of the my evidence images have a date stamp, is it sufficient to add them next to the exhibits on the sheet or would this not be accepted?