Long winded battle against PPM/Gladstones/BW Legal - Guardian Newspaper coverage and MP involved

DownwithPPCs

Coupon-mad said:

Who are the parties to the lease?  Not the managing agent who contracted with the scammers, I bet?!

Here is the UKCPM case I was thinking of and the short written judgment that @bargepole obtained and redacted:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/scou8k818p2x3lo/Residential Judgment UKCPM.pdf?dl=0

You can use that one.  Alongside other similar cases and certainly Jopson (because it is an appeal to a higher Circuit Judge and is persuasive, particularly if you were loading or unloading that day).

The other clause in the lease which caught my eye is-

'A person (a third party) who is not a party to this lease has no right under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease notwithstanding that any such term may purport to confer or may be construed as conferring a benefit on such third party PROVIDED THAT this does not affect any right or remedy of such third party which exists or is available apart from that act.

Is this something I can use against them?

I think so, yes.

The parties are the freeholder, the manager (Peverel OM LTD) and the lessee.

The manager was Peverel OM LTD, but has changed twice since then. BW Legal have shown in their WS how management duties have passed down to the new manager in a deed. The new managing agents are the ones who contracted PPM. BW Legal are aware of that angle so that's how theyre trying to cover themselves. They are trying to establish a chain to the manager who is party to the lease, and then claiming the lease gives the manager the right to enforce their scheme.

Castle

Is there a company number for Peverel OM Ltd; because, there's no record of that company at Companies House after 2010 when it changed its name.

DownwithPPCs

Castle said:

Is there a company number for Peverel OM Ltd; because, there's no record of that company at Companies House after 2010 when it changed its name.

Hi Castle,

They've sent a screenshot from companies house which shows a company called FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LTD (in previous company names it says Peverel OM LTD.)

It looks like firstport then handed responsibilities to Osidge Park management ompany ltd in a deed of assignment July 16.

DownwithPPCs

I've also noticed in the contract between PPM and managing agent, that the person who signed the document is the 'property manager' of the managing agent and not the director of the managing agent who signed the deed of assignment. I don't even think she works for them anymore, in which case I don't see how that document would hold any sway in court.

DownwithPPCs

Coupon-mad said:

Ben, read the (just updated with outcome) thread by @eagle5

Hi Coupon-mad,

I can't seem to find this thread.

Many thanks,

Ben.

DownwithPPCs

@Coupon-mad found it!

Snakes_Belly

I have always thought that these residential claims are the worst kind as they interfere with a person's right to enjoy their property without hassle.

I was at the receiving end of a PCN but I could choose to never use the car park again. Not so for residential parking.

As building land becomes scarcer modern properties including houses do not always have a drive. Their parking is part of the communal car park, Even though their spaces can be freehold they are still subjected to the predatory actions of a PPC who has been appointed by a management company. 

The management companies could install electric gates but they won't spend the money even though they have a sinking fund. 

Fruitcake

DownwithPPCs said:

I've also noticed in the contract between PPM and managing agent, that the person who signed the document is the 'property manager' of the managing agent and not the director of the managing agent who signed the deed of assignment. I don't even think she works for them anymore, in which case I don't see how that document would hold any sway in court.

This is something I knocked up for another poster concerning who can and can't sign a contract on behalf of a company. Hopefully you will find some of it useful. The comments in italics are my interpretation of the Act.

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.

 

Whilst not persuasive, the judge's comments below are useful as it supports the above information.

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."

DownwithPPCs

Fruitcake said:

DownwithPPCs said:

I've also noticed in the contract between PPM and managing agent, that the person who signed the document is the 'property manager' of the managing agent and not the director of the managing agent who signed the deed of assignment. I don't even think she works for them anymore, in which case I don't see how that document would hold any sway in court.

This is something I knocked up for another poster concerning who can and can't sign a contract on behalf of a company. Hopefully you will find some of it useful. The comments in italics are my interpretation of the Act.

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.

 

Whilst not persuasive, the judge's comments below are useful as it supports the above information.

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."

Thank you @Fruitcake. I wondered how you might interpret the following clause in my mother's lease...

'A person (a third party) who is not a party to this lease has no right under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease notwithstanding that any such term may purport to confer or may be construed as conferring a benefit on such third party PROVIDED THAT this does not affect any right or remedy of such third party which exists or is available apart from that act.'

Many thanks.

Ben.

Mouse007

It may for example be a condition of your mother's lease that she pays her Council Tax or utility bills. That clause prevents the local council or utility providers form using her lease to make a claim against her. They have to rely upon their own contract or legal position with your mother.

If for example the electricity supply to the whole building was via a single metered supply with sub meters (I have that in my office) then the landlord could seek to enforce the condition to pay to protect the supply to other tenants. The third party electricity company would however have to seek recovery using their own contract.

This might help

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0af4xrinal00b33gjidsg3b/290419-developments-in-contract-rights-of-third-parties

"The obvious lesson from Chudley, as clearly noted by the Court, is to incorporate a clause excluding the application of the 1999 Act wherever it is not intended to confer a benefit on a third party. Should a need arise to grant a third party enforceable rights, then that can be done by means of a specific clause that is without prejudice to the general exclusion."