Vehicle Control Services court letter: 42-months after alleged incident, and no prior correspondence

Covid_Vaccinator

1505grandad said:

Have not read thoroughly but you still have numerous quotes from BPA CoP which are irrelevant as VCS are IPC AoS members (as pointed out 9th June).

Also not sure of the SoT as it says "defence".

Aye, aware that they are not members of BPA, however also included it to highlight that they are acting outside regulations of both IPC and BPA.

Please could you remind me SoT?

Le_Kirk

SoT = Statement of Truth

Umkomaas

Covid_Vaccinator said:

1505grandad said:

Have not read thoroughly but you still have numerous quotes from BPA CoP which are irrelevant as VCS are IPC AoS members (as pointed out 9th June).

Also not sure of the SoT as it says "defence".

Aye, aware that they are not members of BPA, however also included it to highlight that they are acting outside regulations of both IPC and BPA.

Please could you remind me SoT?

They might well object to its inclusion, diverting attention from the real issues. It is superfluous - the IPC and BPA Codes of Practice diverge in a number of areas, so having it in one CoP doesn't mean the other CoP should have it, nor that the other ATA even agrees on the point.  There are many discrepancies - why do you think the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is demanding one single Code of Practice?

Covid_Vaccinator

I will skip over BPA.

RE:  Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 - copied that section from another WS. Is it wrong?

Umkomaas said:

Covid_Vaccinator said:

1505grandad said:

Have not read thoroughly but you still have numerous quotes from BPA CoP which are irrelevant as VCS are IPC AoS members (as pointed out 9th June).

Also not sure of the SoT as it says "defence".

Aye, aware that they are not members of BPA, however also included it to highlight that they are acting outside regulations of both IPC and BPA.

Please could you remind me SoT?

They might well object to its inclusion, diverting attention from the real issues. It is superfluous - the IPC and BPA Codes of Practice diverge in a number of areas, so having it in one CoP doesn't mean the other CoP should have it, nor that the other ATA even agrees on the point.  There are many discrepancies - why do you think the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is demanding one single Code of Practice?

Umkomaas

Covid_Vaccinator said:

I will skip over BPA.

RE:  Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 - copied that section from another WS. Is it wrong?

Umkomaas said:

Covid_Vaccinator said:

1505grandad said:

Have not read thoroughly but you still have numerous quotes from BPA CoP which are irrelevant as VCS are IPC AoS members (as pointed out 9th June).

Also not sure of the SoT as it says "defence".

Aye, aware that they are not members of BPA, however also included it to highlight that they are acting outside regulations of both IPC and BPA.

Please could you remind me SoT?

They might well object to its inclusion, diverting attention from the real issues. It is superfluous - the IPC and BPA Codes of Practice diverge in a number of areas, so having it in one CoP doesn't mean the other CoP should have it, nor that the other ATA even agrees on the point.  There are many discrepancies - why do you think the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is demanding one single Code of Practice?

Sorry, I've no idea what you're asking. 

Redx

 Google says it's Bill , not Act , but the RAC foundation shows Act !

That's the danger of copying and pasting , without a fact check , so check it yourself

There is a bill by Sir Greg Knight about Parking dated 2019 , where the Mhclg is now tasked to bring in a single CoP , currently being discussed and shortly to be discussed with feedback from the public

Coupon-mad

It's not wrong but not really necessary to put that in a WS.

Covid_Vaccinator

@Fruitcake - I saw this on another thread and will use in my WS - thank you (will adapt for my case RE Barker & Stonehouse).




Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 states that a Simple Contract requires the agreement to be signed by persons having express or implied authority. 
(My interpretation). Express authority would be the owner or an officer of the company (director or company secretary).
Implied authority would be a position (job description) authorised in writing by someone with express authority, or included in company documentation such as its articles of association.

Since the signatories' identity and position within each company of the alleged parking agreement have been redacted, it is averred that neither party had neither express nor implied authority to form a Simple Contract with another party in accordance with the above Act. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.


Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 states that for a document to be validly executes, it must be signed by two authorised persons from each party. Authorised signatories are defined by the Act as directors and company secretaries.
Since the signatories' identity and position within each company of the alleged parking agreement have been redacted, it is averred that the document has not been signed by two authorised persons from each company, and therefore it has not been validly executed in accordance with the strict requirements of the above Act. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.


The alleged contract is not with the landowner, CBRE, but with an alleged agent of the landowner, ReAssure Limited. For the claimant to have standing to issue charges and court claims, they must have authority with or flowing from the landowner.
No contract between the landowner and the claimant has been provided.
No contract flowing from the landowner to an agent, ReAssure Limited, giving the agent authority to form a contract with a third party, Premier Park Limited, has been provided.
Appendix 2 of the alleged contract between ReAssure Limited and Premier Park Limited refers to a Car Parking Services Agreement Framework, but no such agreement has been provided. There is no proof therefore that the alleged parking contract complies with the Car Parking Services Agreement.

Were any of these documents to exist, or indeed supported the claimant's claim, and since the claimant has referred to them in their witness statement, it is reasonable to assume that they would have been produced.
On the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that these documents have not been produced because they do not support the claimant's position. It is averred that these documents, contracts, and agreements support the defendant's position that the claimant does not have standing or authority to issue parking charges and court claims against a motorist. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Covid_Vaccinator

Coupon-mad said:

It's not wrong but not really necessary to put that in a WS.

Thanks.
Hearing is on Wednesday - listed for 1hr - typically how long will a judge grill me? Hopefully WS is so strong that there won't be many questions and a VCS capitulation....

Umkomaas

Covid_Vaccinator said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's not wrong but not really necessary to put that in a WS.

Thanks.
Hearing is on Wednesday - listed for 1hr - typically how long will a judge grill me? Hopefully WS is so strong that there won't be many questions and a VCS capitulation....

You won't be 'grilled', it's not a criminal case. 

Have a look at this if you've not previously seen it - originally posted by forum regular @KeithP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU