MB PCN, Claim Form Received, Defence in progress

Coupon-mad

All if this (the first 12 steps) is covered in the Template Defence thread first post.

MaxMJ

Sorry to read about your troubles with Parking fines.

I would be very interested in the original text of Baywatch Notice or Appeal response they appear to be using a set of generic letters regardless of circumstances?

Many thanks

Michael

raptor182

MaxMJ said:

Sorry to read about your troubles with Parking fines.

I would be very interested in the original text of Baywatch Notice or Appeal response they appear to be using a set of generic letters regardless of circumstances?

Many thanks

Michael

Sorry I hadn't noticed this message until now. I can confirm from all the letters I received that they are the same just specifics changed.  

raptor182

@Coupon-mad or anyone that knows... I've received a licence agreement in the witness statement from the claimant with redacted information, signatures being the main one. What legal standing does this need to be referenced to please?

Le_Kirk

One of the regulars @Fruitcake often writes about contracts, signing therefore and redactions.  He includes this little titbit: -

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.

Search the forum for Promontoria and set the user name to Fruitcake

Fruitcake

raptor182 said:

@Coupon-mad or anyone that knows... I've received a licence agreement in the witness statement from the claimant with redacted information, signatures being the main one. What legal standing does this need to be referenced to please?

Please post the agreement here for us to look at. Have a look at the comments made by the judge in the case Le_Kirk posted about redacting information being unreasonable.
Whilst it may be acceptable to redact information, say, about how much the landowner pays/is paid, redacting things like the name of the landowner or their authorised signatory or the date a contract was signed is not. Note that the Hancock vs Promontoria case was heard in the appeal court so it is persuasive on the lower courts.

Johersh, who is a solicitor, explained this in this thread.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Fruitcake

With regards to contracts and who is authorised to sign them, this is something I knocked up for another poster, so have a look and amend it as you see fit to suit your case.

My comments/interpretation of the Acts is in italics. I have also added information about a case that was thrown out because the signatory was not a director of the landowner.

Don't hang your hat on the following being winning points, but if a judge is wavering then they may be persuaded by their inclusion.

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 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."

raptor182

@Fruitcake this is a great piece of information. It is greatly appreciated.