Paintbrush vs DCB Legal - Writing Defence

beamerguy

Could you remind me ,,,,, DCBL added a fake £60 and called it damages ?
The statement of truth about this was signed by a Yasmin Mia

D_P_Dance

I would suggest that the AR is pertinent as it very likely covers the time you were ticketed.  

Coupon-mad

Paintbrush123 said:

I am writing out my WS now and just wondered can I still reference: POPLA Annual Report 2015 ... or not as this was published 7x months after the parking event? Thanks 

Obviously you can, it's not only a point of law clarified by a barrister with parking law expertise, but it's an ANNUAL REPORT.  What period do you think it covers?

Paintbrush123

Hi Guys, 
I revisited site yesterday and took a video - just checking to see if I can work dropbox properly. Can I put a dropbox link in my WS as an exhibit?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8mzmnmc85om9si/Video 08-06-2021, 18 03 22.mov?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Yes that works, but no I don't think a Judge would click on a Dropbox link.  See what others say about exhibiting a video.

Fruitcake

I believe video evidence needs to be provided to a court on a durable medium such as memory stick/CD?DVD/SD card etcetera

Paintbrush123

I have received Highview Parking WS now - I have redacted it and uploaded to dropbox if you would be kind enough to give any pointers: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lqztg4hkrforxz2/AAAp77yW3WMEh_H3-MUYOU1ga?dl=0
Hopefully it is visible?

Fruitcake

The first thing to note about that WS is that it hasn't been signed. Instead, a facsimile of a signature has been superimposed on the document. I would aver that the person named has not actually signed the WS and therefore everything stated within it is put into doubt.
There is no valid reason for someone to create a complex seventeen page legal document but then fail to sign it.
It is averred that on the balance of probabilities, the document has not been produced or signed by Yvette Yates.

The same applies to the note allegedly written by Adam Stone on behalf of the landowner. A facsimile of a signature has been superimposed onto the document. It is averred that Mr Stone has did actually signed the document at the time it was produced, or at all.
The document has not been signed by anyone with express or implied authority (a company owner or officer, or a position within the company specifically nominated by the owner or an officer of the company, nor in its Articles of Association).
Indeed, the document has not been signed at all let alone by someone from both companies.
There is no valid reason for someone to create an alleged legal document but then fail to sign it. It is averred that on the balance of probabilities, the document has not been produced or signed by Adam Stone.

For a Simple Contract to be valid in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, Section 43, it must be signed by both parties, each signatory having express or implied authority to form a contract on each company's behalf.

In addition, the document has not been validly executed in accordance with the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Section 44, because it has not been signed by two authorised signatories as defined by the Act. An authorised signatory according to the Act is a defined as director or company secretary.

The alleged contract between the landowner and Highview Parking Limited has not been produced. Considering the length of time the claimant has had to prepare for this court claim, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that no such landowner contract exists.

The letter allegedly from Adam Stone does not include any mention that the parking operator has the authority to issue court claims in their own name.
The document states that it was in force during the time the PCN was issued, but does not specify the date that the aforementioned PCN was actually issued. This implies that the document is in fact a template that has been copied and then reproduced when required, rather produced by Adam Stone specifically for the PCN issued against the defendant in this specific case.
This is especially telling since the document was allegedly produced in October 2020, some three months before the court claim was issued, and before the defendant produce their defence. It would have been impossible for Adam Stone to have know a court claim was pending against this specific claimant, three months beforehand.
On the balance of probabilities, it is averred that this letter is a general template that has been reproduced. It is averred that Mr Stone is not even aware that this letter is being used again for a different case other than the one for which it was originally produced.

The images produced do not contain date or time stamps. There is no proof that they were taken at the time of the alleged event, nor of the location where the event is alleged to have occurred.
Indeed, according to the claimant's own evidence, the alleged event occurred between 19:58 on the 28th of March 2015, and and 00:41 on the morning of the following day.
At that time of night, and in Winter, it would have been dark, yet the images of the site were taken in bright sunshine, and therefore bear no resemblance to the conditions prevailing at the time of the alleged event. 
There is no proof that the signs in the images provided, or indeed any signs were present at the time of the alleged event, or could have been seen in the dark by the driver.

The aerial photograph does not contain date and time stamps. It appears to be an image of an empty car park, taken from the internet then amended by the addition of a number of symbols.
There is no key to the symbols.
The site boundary has not been defined to show what area is and isn't covered by the parking operator, therefore there is no proof the defendant's car was within the boundary allegedly managed by the parking operator.

No map of the site contained within the alleged parking contract with the landowner has been produced.
The aerial image does not show where or when the defendant's vehicle was allegedly parked.

There are no images of the defendant's vehicle parked at all.

Paintbrush123

Fruitcake said:

The first thing to note about that WS is that it hasn't been signed. Instead, a facsimile of a signature has been superimposed on the document. I would aver that the person named has not actually signed the WS and therefore everything stated within it is put into doubt.
There is no valid reason for someone to create a complex seventeen page legal document but then fail to sign it.
It is averred that on the balance of probabilities, the document has not been produced or signed by Yvette Yates.

The same applies to the note allegedly written by Adam Stone on behalf of the landowner. A facsimile of a signature has been superimposed onto the document. It is averred that Mr Stone has did actually signed the document at the time it was produced, or at all.
The document has not been signed by anyone with express or implied authority (a company owner or officer, or a position within the company specifically nominated by the owner or an officer of the company, nor in its Articles of Association).
Indeed, the document has not been signed at all let alone by someone from both companies.
There is no valid reason for someone to create an alleged legal document but then fail to sign it. It is averred that on the balance of probabilities, the document has not been produced or signed by Adam Stone.

For a Simple Contract to be valid in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, Section 43, it must be signed by both parties, each signatory having express or implied authority to form a contract on each company's behalf.

In addition, the document has not been validly executed in accordance with the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Section 44, because it has not been signed by two authorised signatories as defined by the Act. An authorised signatory according to the Act is a defined as director or company secretary.

The alleged contract between the landowner and Highview Parking Limited has not been produced. Considering the length of time the claimant has had to prepare for this court claim, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that no such landowner contract exists.

The letter allegedly from Adam Stone does not include any mention that the parking operator has the authority to issue court claims in their own name.
The document states that it was in force during the time the PCN was issued, but does not specify the date that the aforementioned PCN was actually issued. This implies that the document is in fact a template that has been copied and then reproduced when required, rather produced by Adam Stone specifically for the PCN issued against the defendant in this specific case.
This is especially telling since the document was allegedly produced in October 2020, some three months before the court claim was issued, and before the defendant produce their defence. It would have been impossible for Adam Stone to have know a court claim was pending against this specific claimant, three months beforehand.
On the balance of probabilities, it is averred that this letter is a general template that has been reproduced. It is averred that Mr Stone is not even aware that this letter is being used again for a different case other than the one for which it was originally produced.

The images produced do not contain date or time stamps. There is no proof that they were taken at the time of the alleged event, nor of the location where the event is alleged to have occurred.
Indeed, according to the claimant's own evidence, the alleged event occurred between 19:58 on the 28th of March 2015, and and 00:41 on the morning of the following day.
At that time of night, and in Winter, it would have been dark, yet the images of the site were taken in bright sunshine, and therefore bear no resemblance to the conditions prevailing at the time of the alleged event. 
There is no proof that the signs in the images provided, or indeed any signs were present at the time of the alleged event, or could have been seen in the dark by the driver.

The aerial photograph does not contain date and time stamps. It appears to be an image of an empty car park, taken from the internet then amended by the addition of a number of symbols.
There is no key to the symbols.
The site boundary has not been defined to show what area is and isn't covered by the parking operator, therefore there is no proof the defendant's car was within the boundary allegedly managed by the parking operator.

No map of the site contained within the alleged parking contract with the landowner has been produced.
The aerial image does not show where or when the defendant's vehicle was allegedly parked.

There are no images of the defendant's vehicle parked at all.

Wow, thank you so much! I already have a draft WS written with Exhibits lined up but this has provided me with plenty to add. Your help is greatly appreciated! 

Fruitcake

There's more.

The claimant's witness statement Exhibit 1, a copy of an alleged letter of authorisation from the landowner, states that the landowner is a company called Nuveen Global.
There is no such company registered at Companies House. The nearest match for this company name is Nuveen Global Investments Ltd, but according to Companies House records, it is showing as having been dissolved in 2018.
There are no other companies bearing or including the name, Nuveen Global, having ever been registered at Companies House.

Even if Adam Stone had been an employee of Global Nuveen Investments Limited at some point, he could not have been an employee of this company at the time the letter was allegedly written, which is dated 20 October 2020, since this over two years after the date the company was dissolved.

Companies House (company-information.service.gov.uk)