Minster Baywatch / ANPR claim form received

w12ee3e

Found what I needed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p3

Le_Kirk

One of our regulars has already posted 28 November at 3:58PM (<<<<LINK) on this, your very own thread about that case.

w12ee3e

12    Redacted Landowner Contract

13    The Claimant has appended a redacted ‘Customer License Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

14    It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

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. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html

Not sure what to do with this bit on the template, having not seen the scammers WS should I remove it?

Redx

There is no template , it's just a very good example of someone else's work !!

So you adapt it as you see fit ( because it is not a template , but an example , a guide , not to be followed blindly )

w12ee3e

Redx said:

There is no template , it's just a very good example of someone else's work !!

So you adapt it as you see fit ( because it is not a template , but an example , a guide , not to be followed blindly )

Gotcha, I think though what I'm not understanding is how the Redacted Landowner contract comes into play and a rudimentary explanation would be useful? I presume it's basically to say that the scammer hasn't provided proof that the land owner has given the scammer permission to issue the invoices. That's fine, but won't the scammer have this on their WS thus this section would be nullified?

Or I could run with this (in essence)?

The Claimant has not provided any indication in any documents supplied to the Defendant to date that they are authorized by the land owner to issue tickets, demands for payments or manage the site in any capacity appended a redacted ‘Customer License Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

14    Any such documents proving authorization to manage the site would at the very least It is also clear that the document has not been need to be signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

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. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html Mmmm

Le_Kirk

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

w12ee3e

Le_Kirk said:

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

Not yet, I might need to come back to this. Got me thinking though, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned in the newbie guide but can the PPC scammer simply without their WS until say moments before the deadline so I can't respond to it in my own WS?

Redx

w12ee3e said:

Le_Kirk said:

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

Not yet, I might need to come back to this. Got me thinking though, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned in the newbie guide but can the PPC scammer simply without their WS until say moments before the deadline so I can't respond to it in my own WS?

You both have the same deadline , the one on the court order , so yes !

w12ee3e

Redx said:

w12ee3e said:

Le_Kirk said:

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

Not yet, I might need to come back to this. Got me thinking though, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned in the newbie guide but can the PPC scammer simply without their WS until say moments before the deadline so I can't respond to it in my own WS?

You both have the same deadline , the one on the court order , so yes !

Ouch, so I'm right then to presume they can and will submit their WS at the last minute to deny me having the chance to review it. I think the Redacted section should be off the template unfortunately as I'm sure that scammy tactic is standard practise in this so called 'industry'.

Okay, back to my WS. I've been reading up on Fairlie v Fenton but I'm struggling to see how I can utilize it, there's a few examples of where it's called up on defence but I see no WS points. The basis of Fairlie v Fenton appears to be surrounding situations where the land owner is unidentified, too. In my case it's Gloucestershire wildlife trust (scum of the earth) so I guess F v F isn't applicable as 'some' of the signage did mention them.

Le_Kirk

w12ee3e said:

Redx said:

w12ee3e said:

Le_Kirk said:

Have you received the claimant's witness statement?  Did it contain the landowner/PPC contact?  If yes, was it severely redacted?

Not yet, I might need to come back to this. Got me thinking though, I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned in the newbie guide but can the PPC scammer simply without their WS until say moments before the deadline so I can't respond to it in my own WS?

You both have the same deadline , the one on the court order , so yes !

I think the Redacted section should be off the template unfortunately as I'm sure that scammy tactic is standard practise in this so called 'industry'.

What do you mean here?  If you are referring to the examples of @jrhys and @Nosy then they are not templates but EXAMPLES of style and format.