Paintbrush vs DCB Legal - Writing Defence

Castle

And if you read this article, it's claimed that's it's owned by Nuveen Real Estate:-
https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/3466

Fruitcake

Not Nuveen Global then.

There are twelve companies including the name Nuveen, but Adam Stone has never been an officer of any of them so has never had implied or express authority to sign a contract on behalf of the landowner.

Paintbrush123

As always, a massive thank you to all who have helped until now!
Here is my redacted WS Attempt Number 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/5od5f71hph0y030/Paintbrush123%20WS.docx?dl=0
Worth noting that I have until Wednesday 16th to submit, so I have a little time in case I have got this phenomenally wrong!
One thing I was conflicted over was the Beavis Paragraphs, which I have opted to leave out as per Jrhys WS.
 

1505grandad

Some observations after a quick skim read:-

Para 15  -  "........averred that Mr Stone signed the document at the time it was produced, or at all."

I believe you have missed out "HAS NOT" before "signed".

Check you para numbers  -  particularly as after p34 they are out of sequence.

Fruitcake

Paras 4 and 8 (and possibly others) you mean Registered Keeper. There is no such thing as a registered owner. Owner liability does not apply either.

14. Or Maybe not. 

16. You have not mentioned the strict requirements of Section 43 (Simple Contract) or Section 44 (Valid Execution of Documents) of the Companies Act 2006. These are very short so you should print them off and understand what they mean.
(My interpretations)
Express authority - Company owner or officer.
Implied authority - Job position/description stated by the company owner or an officer of the company, or included in company documentation such as its articles of association.

Also mention my comments about Mr Stone never having been an officer of any of the dozen companies with the name Nuveen that have ever been registered at Companies House.

How does Exhibit XX7 help you? I believe it does the opposite.

Coupon-mad

You’ve half quoted an unhelpful bit from Henry Greenslade at #8 and not the useful words...and I am not spelling out what they are. It’s for you to read, think about and understand what you are quoting.

you should quote from their own WS where they admit that they are not using the POFA because they know they can’t hold keepers liable, and remind the Judge that their PoC said that they could, which is a seriously misleading statement of case that would have fooled some Defendants who had not researched the POFA as you did.  If it was as easy as assuming keepers were driving years before, there would have been no need for Parliament to have enacted Schedule 4 as they did in 2012 to give compliant parking operators a statutory option. That Highview have never opted to use that law is their issue, and there is no back door option to keeper liability by presumption.

You should append a screenshot of the car insurance from 2015 if you still have an email or copy.  If not then explain where you talk about others who were insured, that you are not able to provide a copy of a car insurance document from 6 years ago as it doesn’t exist. But on the balance of probabilities, it wasn’t yourself driving to that shopping centre because other family members (who there is no lawful obligation to name and no evidence from the Claimant as to who was driving anyway) used the car for shopping trips more frequently.

Paintbrush123

1505grandad said:

Some observations after a quick skim read:-

Para 15  -  "........averred that Mr Stone signed the document at the time it was produced, or at all."

I believe you have missed out "HAS NOT" before "signed".

Check you para numbers  -  particularly as after p34 they are out of sequence.

Thank you, I have changed Para 15 accordingly. I have triple checked and my document after P34 is still in order leading from point 35 to 36 in the Excel vs Wilkinson case.

Fruitcake said:

Paras 4 and 8 (and possibly others) you mean Registered Keeper. There is no such thing as a registered owner. Owner liability does not apply either.

14. Or Maybe not. 

16. You have not mentioned the strict requirements of Section 43 (Simple Contract) or Section 44 (Valid Execution of Documents) of the Companies Act 2006. These are very short so you should print them off and understand what they mean.
(My interpretations)
Express authority - Company owner or officer.
Implied authority - Job position/description stated by the company owner or an officer of the company, or included in company documentation such as its articles of association.

Also mention my comments about Mr Stone never having been an officer of any of the dozen companies with the name Nuveen that have ever been registered at Companies House.

How does Exhibit XX7 help you? I believe it does the opposite.

I have swapped these to being the Registered Keeper instead. I purposely changed this because I didn't want to get confused with the POFA 20212 where the "keeper" means in the material time (page 3, point 8), could this go against me?
Removed the text within 14
I will familiarise myself, add into WS and crib sheet - thank you. 
Mr Stone is mentioned on page 7 point 24 about the companies and not being authority to sign. 
Page 6 point 23 I have mentioned about companies house and then further in Page 7 point 26 - I am aware and open this may be best to be compiled into one point?
Regards to XX7 I had exhibited it at the wrong point, thank you for pointing out. It is supposed to be in relation to: Page 9, point 31 where the legitimate interest is to do with flow of traffic within the shopping centre. 

Coupon-mad said:

You’ve half quoted an unhelpful bit from Henry Greenslade at #8 and not the useful words...and I am not spelling out what they are. It’s for you to read, think about and understand what you are quoting.

you should quote from their own WS where they admit that they are not using the POFA because they know they can’t hold keepers liable, and remind the Judge that their PoC said that they could, which is a seriously misleading statement of case that would have fooled some Defendants who had not researched the POFA as you did.  If it was as easy as assuming keepers were driving years before, there would have been no need for Parliament to have enacted Schedule 4 as they did in 2012 to give compliant parking operators a statutory option. That Highview have never opted to use that law is their issue, and there is no back door option to keeper liability by presumption.

You should append a screenshot of the car insurance from 2015 if you still have an email or copy.  If not then explain where you talk about others who were insured, that you are not able to provide a copy of a car insurance document from 6 years ago as it doesn’t exist. But on the balance of probabilities, it wasn’t yourself driving to that shopping centre because other family members (who there is no lawful obligation to name and no evidence from the Claimant as to who was driving anyway) used the car for shopping trips more frequently.

I will go back through and read the POPLA report and extract further what I thought would be useful. 
I will add in the misleading statement, thank you. 
I do not have car insurance details from that far back but will add in details of those who could have been. 

Many thanks all - I shall get an amended version up shortly!

1505grandad

" I have triple checked and my document after P34 is still in order leading from point 35 to 36 in the Excel vs Wilkinson case."

Not sure what the above means but I was referring to (i.e.paras not pages):-

Should be after p35 (error stating p34) where para nos. 16, 17 and 18 appear (Further Costs).

Paintbrush123

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vinuk7s37ae9mjv/Paintbrush123%20WS%20v2.docx?dl=0 V2

1505grandad said:

" I have triple checked and my document after P34 is still in order leading from point 35 to 36 in the Excel vs Wilkinson case."

Not sure what the above means but I was referring to (i.e.paras not pages):-

Should be after p35 (error stating p34) where para nos. 16, 17 and 18 appear (Further Costs).

I thought you was referencing pages instead of paragraphs, apologies - fixed and thank you!

Coupon-mad said:

You’ve half quoted an unhelpful bit from Henry Greenslade at #8 and not the useful words...and I am not spelling out what they are. It’s for you to read, think about and understand what you are quoting.

you should quote from their own WS where they admit that they are not using the POFA because they know they can’t hold keepers liable, and remind the Judge that their PoC said that they could, which is a seriously misleading statement of case that would have fooled some Defendants who had not researched the POFA as you did.  If it was as easy as assuming keepers were driving years before, there would have been no need for Parliament to have enacted Schedule 4 as they did in 2012 to give compliant parking operators a statutory option. That Highview have never opted to use that law is their issue, and there is no back door option to keeper liability by presumption.

You should append a screenshot of the car insurance from 2015 if you still have an email or copy.  If not then explain where you talk about others who were insured, that you are not able to provide a copy of a car insurance document from 6 years ago as it doesn’t exist. But on the balance of probabilities, it wasn’t yourself driving to that shopping centre because other family members (who there is no lawful obligation to name and no evidence from the Claimant as to who was driving anyway) used the car for shopping trips more frequently.

I have amended point 8 on page 3/4 and point 13 on page 4 regards to Henry's wording. Thanks for pointing out. 
I have also added to point 4 on page 2/3 about the insurance policies and usage of my vehicle - I will add more regards to the shipping point you mentioned, apologies I did miss that so will go back and add in my next batch of changes / additions. 

Fruitcake said:

Paras 4 and 8 (and possibly others) you mean Registered Keeper. There is no such thing as a registered owner. Owner liability does not apply either.

14. Or Maybe not. 

16. You have not mentioned the strict requirements of Section 43 (Simple Contract) or Section 44 (Valid Execution of Documents) of the Companies Act 2006. These are very short so you should print them off and understand what they mean.
(My interpretations)
Express authority - Company owner or officer.
Implied authority - Job position/description stated by the company owner or an officer of the company, or included in company documentation such as its articles of association.

Also mention my comments about Mr Stone never having been an officer of any of the dozen companies with the name Nuveen that have ever been registered at Companies House.

How does Exhibit XX7 help you? I believe it does the opposite.

As mentioned above a lot of the Mr Stone bit is within page 6/7 from the Redacted / Missing Landowner Contract section. 
I have amended the exhibit reference of XX7 - do you still feel this would be a negative? If so, I shall remove.
I still need to get up to scratch with Companies Act 2006 so is on my list of things to do. 


Many thanks all!

Coupon-mad

You also need to append the POPLA annual report in question as an exhibit.

don’t actually NAME the other drivers of course but you can say ‘my partner, son, daughter, grandma’ or whoever.