Court hearing 27/05/2021

chrisjinksss

Hi yes exactly the same as the link above

Redx

Email the same bundle to legal as you sent to the court

You can send a supplementary WS later on in this saga to both parties , but keep everything consistent or else they can claim unreasonable behaviour , which you do not want

Fruitcake

It's not a contract because it's only be signed by one party and therefore fails the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to a Simple Contract, and fails Section 44 of the Act which requires two authorised signatories from each party for a document to be validly executed.

It only permits Bank Park to issue PCNs. It does not give any authority for the scammers to issue court claims.

chrisjinksss

Redx said:

Email the same bundle to legal as you sent to the court

You can send a supplementary WS later on in this saga to both parties , but keep everything consistent or else they can claim unreasonable behaviour , which you do not want

I have just done this and will now look through the forum on how to submit a supplementary WS as i am sure the images i have of the car park showing no signs / 2 in total compared to their 10 they claim was up and the fact they have the incorrect layout of the car park should be enough for me to win but i have never been to court nor spoke in one so who knows what the outcome may be.
again thanks for this info 

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

It's not a contract because it's only be signed by one party and therefore fails the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to a Simple Contract, and fails Section 44 of the Act which requires two authorised signatories from each party for a document to be validly executed.

It only permits Bank Park to issue PCNs. It does not give any authority for the scammers to issue court claims.

It doesn't even set out the hours of operation, contraventions, obligations of either party or definitions or exemptions. Nothing about who has to put signs up and where, and what sort of patrols operate or ANPR/CCTV, and whether there is a pay & display arrangement and who keeps the tariffs and who pays the VAT on them.

Who knows what Bank Park can issue PCNs for or what the enforcement boundary is, and as you say, who retains the right to sue.  This looks like Bank Park are just contracted to issue pieces of paper and keep payments as consideration for their service but that doesn't mean they can form contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, any more than a contracted litter-picker or security firm could.

chrisjinksss

I am hoping the following images will suffice as additional evidence 

these are the only ones i can do as going into the car park on any map / image takes you to 2018 when the layout was the old car park layout

Fruitcake

According to Companies House records, Dan Murray has never been an officer of intu Property Management Ltd so he is incapable of forming a contract with another party.

chrisjinksss

The car park plan they have in the WT is from 2011 however they was not appointed to manage the site till 03/04/2019 and the car park has had the new layout since at least may 2019 

Redx

chrisjinksss said:

Redx said:

Email the same bundle to legal as you sent to the court

You can send a supplementary WS later on in this saga to both parties , but keep everything consistent or else they can claim unreasonable behaviour , which you do not want

I have just done this and will now look through the forum on how to submit a supplementary WS as i am sure the images i have of the car park showing no signs / 2 in total compared to their 10 they claim was up and the fact they have the incorrect layout of the car park should be enough for me to win but i have never been to court nor spoke in one so who knows what the outcome may be.
again thanks for this info 

You just draw up a new page as a WS with any extra points , add statement of truth etc , add a title of supplementary WS , then email to the Court and also cc the legal firm , ensuring any extra exhibits are numbered and included with it , so no different to bundle 1 , but no rehashing of what was in bundle 1 , it's all new

I have never been to Court either , not spoke in one , experience isn't relevant , but good preparation is , most of us avoid it , usually by nipping them in the bud , as soon as possible

Read every 2021 winning court thread on here , see what they said in their after court reports !! Learn from those who went through it recently

Castle

Fruitcake said:

According to Companies House records, Dan Murray has never been an officer of intu Property Management Ltd so he is incapable of forming a contract with another party.

And furthermore, according to their 2019 Accounts Intu Property Management Ltd, (Company number 04104680), doesn't own any land or buildings, in fact they have no Fixed Assets and just provide management services at the site.