LBCC - County Court Claim - Enterprise Parking Solutions

happych4ppy

Umkomaas said:

Signage (the contract) should always figure near the top (I presume you have good evidence to back up your argument). 

Landowner contract, but you'll need to know your way around the case law to convincingly argue the Companies Act failure re 'redacted signatures' point. Don't assume a Judge will know.

DLUHC point, backed up with Excel v Wilkinson.

A few more questions, perhaps @Fruitcake can help me out here...

1) signage > what specifically is the point of referencing the Beavis case in relation to evidence of poor signage and why are the paragraph  98, 193, 198 from the Beavis case relevant/necessary?

2) contract

2.1) do I need to print out paragraphs from Hancock v Promontoria to argue that redactions means the contract isn't whole and therefore void - and/or am I arguing that the redacted signature means there is no proof that he signed it?

will the following be sufficient? or do I need more? 

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court  are being asked to interpret the contract.

The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...

2.2) do I use the same Hancock v Promontoria to argue the contract isn't because it has one page (1 of 8) and another page (3 of 14) and therefore the contract is void? + or am I arguing something else here such as they are put to strict proof that the "contract" is valid because is appears to be from two different documents?

2.3) do I need to print out the companies act 2015 43,44 to back up argument that there is no evidence that the signatory had authority to sign the contract on behalf of the landowner?

+ do I need to print out pages from companies house to prove Richard Williams was nowhere to be found therefor is not a director or owner with authority to sign

+ do I need to print out  judgment of case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."


also) do i need to print out a bank statement that proves I was a paying customer on the day?


Thanks in advanced

Coupon-mad

1) signage > what specifically is the point of referencing the Beavis case in relation to evidence of poor signage 

Because that image is the high bar of a clear and large sign with the £85 in very large, bold text.

You don't need to print anything.  WS bundles are sent by email now.

You don't need the Companies Act because that's statute law and personally I don't think 'not having two signatures' is (or ever has been) a winning point in front of a Judge in a parking case.

I'd be arguing unclear signage with evidence pics, plus this:

they are put to strict proof that the "contract" is valid because is appears to be from two different documents

A printout from Companies' House might be useful, yes. Along with this:

 judgment of case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

also) do i need to print out a bank statement that proves I was a paying customer on the day?

I would - if you are admitted driver and this is all about unclear signs/no contract agreed or seen, or prominently drawn to your attention.

Plus the DLUHC new CoP about banning the fake added costs because they are 'extortion' which must be the biggest steer that any Judge could wish for, that the various conflicting judgments about the false £60/£70 are now dead in the water.

happych4ppy

Fruitcake said:

The signature of the person signing for the landowner has been redacted, so there is no proof that it was signed by Richard Williams, or that the signatory has authority to sign a contract. If they had, there would be no reason to redact it. 
Use the redactions in disclosure point from the Hancock vs Promontoria case about hiding the signature being unreasonable. Note that this was an appeal court decision so is persuasive on the lower courts.
Combine that with there being no proof that the signatory had the authority to sign on behalf of the landowner and therefore failed to comply with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Below is what I produced for another poster, so pick out all the parts that are relevant. I suggest you look up Joseph Holt Limited using the Companies House online portal and check whether Richard Williams was an officer of the company or a person with significant control/interest in the company at the time the contract was signed.

Companies Act 2006

 

Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 43

 Companies Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk) Section 44

 For S43

 43 Company contracts

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a contract may be made—

(a) by a company, by writing under its common seal, or

(b) on behalf of a company, by a person acting under its authority, express or implied.

(2) Any formalities required by law in the case of a contract made by an individual also apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to a contract made by or on behalf of a company.

 

1 (a) Rarely used

1 (b) Express authority means a statement from a person such as the owner, a company director or company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company, who has the authority to form legally binding contracts with another party.

Implied authority would usually be found in the company’s Articles of Association or similar as held by Companies House stating that a person holding a specific title such as Regional Manager or Property Manager has authority, or a person specifically named by the owner, director, company secretary, or someone with significant interest in the company has authority.

The alleged contract fails S 43 of the Companies Act because it has not been signed by an officer of the landowner company nor by someone with express or implied authority to form a contract with another party.

  

For S44

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The alleged contract fails S 44 of the Companies Act because it has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because the neither party has affixed its common seal, it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

 

The paragraph below was from another case where the judge said the person who signed the contract was not authorised to do so, so it supports the point that a contract must be signed by an officer of the company or by someone with significant control/interest.

District Judge Simon Middleton said in his judgment of case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020 that, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

You should also note that the two pages you have posted appear to be from different documents. The first page is Page 1 of 8, whereas the second page is page 3(?) of 14, and has not been signed or dated by the client.

Is that all the claimant provided with regards to the contract/service agreement, because if they are, you should aver they are from different documents for different sites, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Just to clarify, who am I saying failed to sign the contract? from the looks of their contract, it appears both signatures are on the first page, so am I arguing that the redacted name of the landowner (client) is what makes the contract invalid? (plus the fact that the second page is not signed by Enterprise) thanks

Coupon-mad

Like I said above, IMHO no Judge will care.

happych4ppy

Another one bites the dust!

They would have favoured me on the fact that the Claimant submitted their WS a week late however I was also found to be at fault because I emailed my WS to the claimant without notifying them first (apparently that is an error) and so we were both found to be at fault (the judge suggested that to go back and start again would be a waste of everyones times and so we all agreed to just go ahead with the case anyway)

I won the case at my first point that "Any photographs purporting to show such signage on a different date cannot be considered sufficient to evidence their presence on the date in question" The date on the photos (of signs) was Feb 2020 yet the offence was October 2020.

The judge dismissed the case and so couldn't claim my costs as a litigant in person so I only got my paid for my loss of leave bit annoying for all the time I put in.

Regardless I couldn't have don't it without all your guys help so just wanna say a big thank you

Coupon-mad

Well done! It is often all about the signs.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!