BW LEGAL offered without prejudice offer on PCN - help for next steps.

nosferatu1001

Usual prolix. No facts, just argument and assumption.  

Courts really should crack down on this, by penalising those making the statements.  

beamerguy

This is once again utter utter crap from BWLegal.  
Wonder which one of their idiots thinks they can claim for "tracing" ??  
So pathetic ... this is total desperation to prove their fakery

If BWLegal think they can mug a judge like this, well BWL keep popping the pills, they may help when a judge kicks out your rubbish  . AGAIN ?

Fruitcake

The scammers have not produced a document that complies with the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 regarding a Simple Contract. 
A document requires express or implied authority from each party in order for a simple contract to be formed. Express authority would require a company owner or officer to name the signatory, and implied authority would require the company owner or an officer to give a position within the company (job title) the authority to sign a contract, or for a position to be named in documentation such as the company's articles of association. For example, they could say, a Property Manager can sign a contract on behalf of the company.
S Roche is not the company owner, an officer of the company, or someone with significant interest in the company, so is not authorised to form a simple contract on behalf of the company.
The purported contract has not been signed by the scammers at all.

Similarly, the purported contract has failed the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

For a document to be validly executed in accordance with S44 of the Act, it must be signed by two authorised signatories from each party. In other words, there must be four signatures for a document to be validly executed. 
The Act defines an authorised signatory as a director, company secretary, or a director and a witness.
Again, there is only one signature from someone who is not authorised to validly execute a document, and there are no signatures at all from the scammers.

kk1223

I am going to submit the bundle which has been agreed with the Claimant to court.  Is it worth attaching a word document draft order alongside it? 

Le_Kirk

What will the draft order say?  Is this a set-aside application?

kk1223

Yes a set aside application before the court date.  Court date is next week? 

It says on the order from court... because this order has been made without a hearing a party may apply to set it aside. 
such an application..
- may be made by sending an email to the court copied to all parties by 7 days after service
- must include in the subject line of the email the words 'application to vary sct'
- must attach draft of the order the court is invited to make and
-must set out in the body of the email on which grounds the proposed order is sought
-will be dealt with on paper without a hearing. 

Le_Kirk

If you have a date for a set-aside hearing, have you not already submitted a N244, paid the fee and provided a witness statement and six-point draft order?

kk1223

Sorry maybe I have confused myself here reading different threads and that I am not supposed to write a draft order.  I am the defendant so the Claimant has submitted the court documents and paid the trial fee.  I provided my WS on time and they have submitted this with their bundle to court. 

KeithP

No, you do not provide a draft order - probably.
The only mention of 'set aside' is if you want to set aside that particular order of the court.

As you haven't told us what the court has ordered, I don't think anyone can say whether you want to set aside that order or not.

Coupon-mad

. because this order has been made without a hearing a party may apply to set it aside. 
such an application..

No, you do not wish to vary the Order and you have no reason to make a new application.  The important application is already in, and has a hearing.