New direction questionnaire from a stayed case in March 2020!!

Debunked

Sorry for the bump, but just wondered if anyone could give it a look over please? Going away tomorrow so will need everything fixed by then, to send on the 4th.

Fruitcake

I might have missed it, but have you stated that the original case was struck out, and why?

With regards to the alleged landowner contract, You could expand on your comments about it failing the strict requirements of the Companies Act 2006, Sections 43 and 44. Those two sections are very short, so worth a read through.

I knocked this up for another poster a while ago, so you can modify it to suit your case. 

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.

 

 

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 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.

 

 

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."

Coupon-mad

Debunked said:

Sorry for the bump, but just wondered if anyone could give it a look over please? Going away tomorrow so will need everything fixed by then, to send on the 4th.

Everything I already said - I presume we crossposted.

Debunked

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MYNgJrjFF5paFAvLYMuJ1xt6RzA6XmwW58JBqdXNBEI/edit?usp=sharing
Last WS hopefully. Taken a while and feel like I'm flying by the seat of my pants a bit. Rubbish with computers and don't understand most of what I'm reading, but hopefully I can do you helpful folk 'justice' come June. I will attempt to change the transcripts @Coupon-mad. Wilkinson I copy and pasted and the other I printed and scanned. Like I said not great with computers. Thanks for all your help on this. 

Debunked

Hello all, 
Can I get away with saying this about the previous order as a point on my WS? I want to highlight the fact they have wasted mine and the courts time already without annoying the judge.
"The Claimant has already received a stern order from the court regarding a substandard particulars of claim, citing 'amending in plain English' as a main problem on the construction of the document. Obviously the Claimant must have applied for a stay in the required time as we are at this point, but it does not escape my attention the poor way they have handled matters from the start. Causing myself and others undue problems by their incompetence." See exhibit CL10

Coupon-mad

Yes and you can add that this and the failure to supply any detail or photo evidence whatsoever at pre-action stage, is indicative of a wholly unreasonable course of conduct.

You only need two examples for behaviour to be a 'course of conduct'.

They didn't 'apply for a stay' though, that bit is wrong.  They may have applied to lift the stay.

95Rollers

Some great evidence on that document especially with your picture evidence.  I know this site well as it's relatively local to where I'm living now.   I've actually had a walk through and found it was poorly signposted especially I'm regards to T&Cs and the sparsity of text and signs themselves which are in places that can be easily obscured by Parked cars. I tend to either use the big Asda, the council carparks or street if I have to travel into the town.  When's your court date? 

Debunked

95Rollers said:

Some great evidence on that document especially with your picture evidence.  I know this site well as it's relatively local to where I'm living now.   I've actually had a walk through and found it was poorly signposted especially I'm regards to T&Cs and the sparsity of text and signs themselves which are in places that can be easily obscured by Parked cars. I tend to either use the big Asda, the council carparks or street if I have to travel into the town.  When's your court date? 

Thankyou @95Rollers. My court date isn't until the 09/06/22, but I have to file WS in 2 days!  I think hopefully they may just leave it, after seeing my loaded WS, as they have a quite a while to put the court fee in. Although I would like to win, and take some money from them by way of costs.
We will see what happens.

Coupon-mad

The transcripts are still too blurry to read which means the Judge won't be able to read them either.

Unless your version is readable?

I think what you are doing wrong is copying and pasting exhibits or screenshotting them.  You don't need to do any of that and Exhibit CL00 isn't an Exhibit at all because you've copied snd pasted the words of Henry Greenslade instead of providing the actual pages from the POPLA Annual Report.  The problem with that is, the document has no provenance.  You could have written those words yourself.

What you need to do (if your version is like the one you've shown us) is use a free 'merge PDFs' tool, so that each exhibit retains its image quality.  I am not especially techy but I can do it, so you can too.

Here, to stop you appearing obstructive I'd add the following:

this appears to be a family member insured on the car at the time.  The driver will not be named, firstly because there is no such obligation in law and secondly, because I have no wish to potentially inflict upon a vulnerable family member the same level of intimidation that I have been subjected to over the years.

You also have odd orphan numbers here and there in the middle of sentences. Are they page numbers that are displaying oddly because it was basically a Word document, not a PDF?

Debunked

Thanks @Coupon-mad I have adjusted all the things you have mentioned.