Uploading a file

Coupon-mad

Semark-Jullien is already debunked as something and nothing, in the WS shown as an example in the NEWBIES thread.

VCS v HMRC you don't have to respond to.

Fruitcake

Please confirm what redactions the scammers made in the contract. The most obvious one is that the identity of the client has been redacted, but we need you to confirm that you didn't do that.

The same applies to the names and signatures. The whole signature section looks dodgy. The left hand edge of the first signature box is missing, and it looks like part of it has been cut and badly pasted so the box surround and some of the wording do not align.

If the scammers did the redactions, then a persuasive appeal court case comes into play. If not, then we need to see those names and positions.

Not_A_Hope

All the redactions are those made by the scammers. I changed nothing.

Fruitcake

Excellent, thank you. More to come on that in a bit.

Umkomaas

There's some gobbledegook wording/spelling in the landowner contract. Is that showing on your copy @Not_A_Hope or is it the product of an upload to Dropbox? 

Not_A_Hope

I hadn't noticed but the gobbledegook has occurred when the document has been uploaded to Dropbox. I didn't know that was possible. The original which came as a PDF via email from Gladstones doesn't have the errors e.g. JP is actually £0, lots of word errors on page 2. Should I scan the paper copy I printed of the contract and upload directly tomorrow?

Fruitcake

Yes please. We really need to see it exactly as it was received by you.

With regards to the redactions, have a look at this thread by Johnersh, quote the Hancock v Promontoria (Chesnut) Limited [2020] case, EWCA Civ 907, and the judges findings where he said redactions in disclosure (which is the WS and evidence stage you are currently at) is unacceptable in most cases.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Redacting how much the scammers pay or get paid would probably be considered sensitive data, so redacting it would be acceptable. Redacting the identity of the client as well as the identities of the signatories would not. 
Point out that the above case was heard in the Appeal Court so is persuasive on the lower courts.

You should aver that these identities have been deliberately withheld because they are not those of the landowner therefore you believe the scammers do not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner.

I'll post some more about the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Sections 43 and 44 with regards to contracts and documents. They are both very short so it's worth having a look yourself.

Fruitcake

Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 requires signatories to a Simple Contract to have express or implied authority to form a contract. Examples of someone having express authority would be the owner(s) or a company officer such as a director or company secretary. Examples of someone having implied authority would be a position (job title) within a company such as property manager or legal department being given authority in writing by the owner(s) or a company officer, or included in the company's articles of association.

Since the names, signatures, and positions within the company have been redacted, it is averred that neither of the signatories to the alleged contract have express or implied authority from the landowner to form a contract with another party as required by the above Act.


Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires two authorised signatories from each party to sign a document for it to be validly executed. The Act defines authorised signatories as any two from a director and company secretary, or director and witness.

Since there is only one signatory from each party, and the names, signatures, and positions within the company have been redacted, it is averred that neither of the signatories are authorised by the landowner or the claimant to form a contract with another party as required by the above Act.

Fruitcake

The alleged contract states that it will run for a minimum of twelve months from 08/11/17, but there is no proof that it was till in force on the date of the alleged event, 04/o3/20.

(Some) images of signs are date stamped from 18/05/20. There is no proof those signs were in place at the time of the alleged event. Are any of the other images date stamped?

Do the scammers have date stamped images of the car parked within the car park, or date stamped ANPR images?

There are no images of an NTD or NTK, so no proof a PCN was ever issued.

Not_A_Hope

This links to a better version of the contract:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5v66ffolis2vwh/HX Contract001.pdf?dl=0
Thanks Fruitcake for your comments regarding Redactions in Disclosure, Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act and minimum 12 contract. I thought it strange they felt it necessary to redact pretty much any of it and wondered about the 12 month min.
I am quite happy to use their timestamped images and these match those in my witness statement. They have happily demonstrated there were no terms and condition signs when stood at the payment machine that included a requirement to input a VRN. They have since replaced some of the signs and have kindly put one at knee height on the green cabinet. Those signs that did have terms and conditions inc VRN were remote from the payment machine e.g on the wall behind users. I have a photo of the nearest and it is in very poor condition.
The scammers have provided timestamped evidence of entry and exit of the vehicle as well as copies of NTK etc. I only uploaded the first 22 pages rather than redact names, addresses, VRN the remaining 21 pages that were copies of all the correspondence.