Vehicle Control Services LJLA

Old_Slobberchops

DisruptiveLad said:

People are getting in touch with some incredibly unsafe demands for money. VCS are claiming LJLA say the 1982 bylaws are obsolete. What utter !!!!!! they're spouting. I can't believe VCS are blatantly breaking the law. LJLA have told me they have tried to repeal some bylaws, but had failed four times.

LJLA now have byelaws in place. It's up on their website, in faint print, tiny text bottom right. They are dated Sept 2021 so I;m guessing that's when they were submitted. They contain a request that the old byelaws of 1982 are rescinded - an admission that the old ones did apply to the currents site, othewise, why would they be requesting it?

Umkomaas

Old_Slobberchops said:

DisruptiveLad said:

People are getting in touch with some incredibly unsafe demands for money. VCS are claiming LJLA say the 1982 bylaws are obsolete. What utter !!!!!! they're spouting. I can't believe VCS are blatantly breaking the law. LJLA have told me they have tried to repeal some bylaws, but had failed four times.

LJLA now have byelaws in place. It's up on their website, in faint print, tiny text bottom right. They are dated Sept 2021 so I;m guessing that's when they were submitted. They contain a request that the old byelaws of 1982 are rescinded - an admission that the old ones did apply to the currents site, othewise, why would they be requesting it?

I know LJLA have tried many times to get the DfT to sign off their attempts at numerous byelaws drafts, and have always failed. I wonder why there are no signatures and dates showing on the byelaws linked via the website?

Old_Slobberchops

Umkomaas said:

I know LJLA have tried many times to get the DfT to sign off their attempts at numerous byelaws drafts, and have always failed. I wonder why there are no signatures and dates showing on the byelaws linked via the website?

good spot. Why are they unsigned? And why were previous attempts refused. One for an FOI to DfT, I think.
 

DisruptiveLad

Umkomaas, at least four efforts were knocked back LJLA told me on Jan 27th.

Old_Slobberchops

DisruptiveLad said:

Umkomaas, at least four efforts were knocked back LJLA told me on Jan 27th.

So the unsigned byelaws they are now advertising on there site haven't been approved either and its just an exercise in misleading the public?

DisruptiveLad

I don't know tbh.

Old_Slobberchops

DisruptiveLad said:

I don't know tbh.

I've been reliably informed that the public display version of byelaws are frequently left unsigned but the actual byelaws with signature are available for public inspection by the byelaw holders on request. so a chat to LJLA might be in order. Who's the landowner? It's not Peel. They part own the airport with Liverpool Council and an investment company.

DisruptiveLad

I haven't identified the landowner. Elms Legal didn't know, or at least they claimed they didn't know.

Doomtrooper

Morning everyone,
I have started to track this thread , as it may help my case as well. Long story, I got similar problem. Had to stop due to emergency problem with car for around 1 min near roundabout to LJLP.
@DistruptiveLad mentioned their contract which they usually send from CRP request is not compliant with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. Is it possible you could explain why? I mean which exact points are violated?

Fruitcake

Doomtrooper said:

Morning everyone,
I have started to track this thread , as it may help my case as well. Long story, I got similar problem. Had to stop due to emergency problem with car for around 1 min near roundabout to LJLP.
@DistruptiveLad mentioned their contract which they usually send from CRP request is not compliant with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. Is it possible you could explain why? I mean which exact points are violated?

This post I put together to help another poster might help.

Note that I haven't seen the JLLA contract, so some of my comments, which are my interpretation, may not apply, but they should help point you in the right direction. Extracts from the Act are in italics.

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."