Fluttering ticket parking fine

Castle

The contract was signed more than 10 years ago as there are only reference(s) to VCS being a member of the BPA.

Fruitcake

Some of the redactions are neat ovals, and some are hand-drawn. Please confirm which are yours, and which were done by VCS.

The location of the site, the name of the landowner, and the names of the signatories have been redacted. We need to know if these were all redacted by the claimant.
Without this information, it is impossible to determine if the alleged contract was for the site in question, was with the landowner of the site in question, and signed by persons authorised to form a contract as defined by The Companies Act 2006, Sections 43 and 44. It is also impossible to determine if the contract was actually in place at the time because the dates have been redacted.

If the claimant made these redactions, then the appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria is very relevant. Being an appeal case, it is persuasive on the lower courts.Here the judge stated that it is seldom acceptable to redact information in a contractual document.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

In your WS, and at the hearing, you should challenge (most of) the redactions. Redacting commercially sensitive sections is acceptable, for example how much a company will pay another for their services. However, redacting the dates a contract ends, the location where the alleged contract applies, and the identity of the landowner is not. 
The fact that this information has been redacted infers that, the contract ended before the alleged event occurred, the contract is not for the location where the alleged vent occurred, the person named on the contract does not actually have title to the land, and the persons who signed the alleged contract did not have the authority to do so. You should aver this, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.
Point out that if the contract had not ended before the alleged event, was indeed for the alleged location, and was indeed with the actual landowner, then there is no reason why the claimant would have redacted this information. The fact that it has been redacted would lead the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" to believe on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not have a legitimate contract with the landowner at the material time.

If the claimant tries to produce an unredacted document after the WS submission deadline, or indeed at the hearing, you should complain vehemently that this is unfair, and the "evidence should not be admitted" as it breaches court orders and puts the defendant at a significant disadvantage.

In addition, have a look at S 43 and S 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short. 
S43 defines who can sign a simple contract between two parties.
S44 defines who can sign documents for them to be validly executed.

By redacting the contract signatories, it should be averred that the named persons were not authorised to sign as per S43 or S44, and there weren't enough signatories to comply with S44 either.
Our friend "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (e legal definition of a reasonable person) would believe on the balance of probabilities that the named persons did not have the authority to sign as per the Act. If they did, then again there would be no reason to withhold them. Redacting the dates of signing also implies that the contract was not in place at the material time, and again, if it was in place then there would be no need to redact them.

As advised by C-m, we do need to see the rest of their WS. 

ParkingScum

Coupon-mad said:

Where's the 'boundary plan and instructions overleaf'?

Will post that hang fire.

ParkingScum

nopcns said:

Are those VCSs redactions or the OPs? Evidencing a contract with dates, signatures and the names and positions of those signatories within the respective companies redacted makes what is shown as useful as piece of used bog-roll.

They are my redactions. The neat oval ones are VCS. Far as I can see the contract is good.

ParkingScum

Castle said:

The contract was signed more than 10 years ago as there are only reference(s) to VCS being a member of the BPA.

It rolls on. Company name is old as I looked car park up on land registry. But it transfered to the new company as per contract. I visted the new company HQ and they use VCS in their car park so that checks out.

ParkingScum

Fruitcake said:

Some of the redactions are neat ovals, and some are hand-drawn. Please confirm which are yours, and which were done by VCS.

The location of the site, the name of the landowner, and the names of the signatories have been redacted. We need to know if these were all redacted by the claimant.
Without this information, it is impossible to determine if the alleged contract was for the site in question, was with the landowner of the site in question, and signed by persons authorised to form a contract as defined by The Companies Act 2006, Sections 43 and 44. It is also impossible to determine if the contract was actually in place at the time because the dates have been redacted.

If the claimant made these redactions, then the appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria is very relevant. Being an appeal case, it is persuasive on the lower courts.Here the judge stated that it is seldom acceptable to redact information in a contractual document.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

In your WS, and at the hearing, you should challenge (most of) the redactions. Redacting commercially sensitive sections is acceptable, for example how much a company will pay another for their services. However, redacting the dates a contract ends, the location where the alleged contract applies, and the identity of the landowner is not. 
The fact that this information has been redacted infers that, the contract ended before the alleged event occurred, the contract is not for the location where the alleged vent occurred, the person named on the contract does not actually have title to the land, and the persons who signed the alleged contract did not have the authority to do so. You should aver this, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true.
Point out that if the contract had not ended before the alleged event, was indeed for the alleged location, and was indeed with the actual landowner, then there is no reason why the claimant would have redacted this information. The fact that it has been redacted would lead the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" to believe on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not have a legitimate contract with the landowner at the material time.

If the claimant tries to produce an unredacted document after the WS submission deadline, or indeed at the hearing, you should complain vehemently that this is unfair, and the "evidence should not be admitted" as it breaches court orders and puts the defendant at a significant disadvantage.

In addition, have a look at S 43 and S 44 of the Companies Act 2006. They are both very short. 
S43 defines who can sign a simple contract between two parties.
S44 defines who can sign documents for them to be validly executed.

By redacting the contract signatories, it should be averred that the named persons were not authorised to sign as per S43 or S44, and there weren't enough signatories to comply with S44 either.
Our friend "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (e legal definition of a reasonable person) would believe on the balance of probabilities that the named persons did not have the authority to sign as per the Act. If they did, then again there would be no reason to withhold them. Redacting the dates of signing also implies that the contract was not in place at the material time, and again, if it was in place then there would be no need to redact them.

As advised by C-m, we do need to see the rest of their WS. 

Sorry neat ovals are VCS redactions messy ones are mine. The contract looks good to me. They only redacted the costs.

ParkingScum

Far as I can see everything is in order regarding contract and POFA which was all in order. The carpark plan is correct but will post in anyway when I get chance.

ParkingScum

Car park layout. I would possibly contest the sign on the way in and also the signs are different. Some mention £70 debt recovery fee some don’t. You can barely read them as they’re either on the ground or high up on posts. Theres no sign at the ticket machine. And the evidence provided by vcs of the signs shows leaves on the trees and blue skies. This happened on a grey rainy day in winter.

ParkingScum

Im also wandering what the big redaction id on the bottom. And its funny how their contract has the sentence ‘the company shall not be liable for failure to perform any obligation under the terms of this agreement if such failure results from circumstances beyond its control’
They don’t extend this curtesy to their customers. I.E me.

Fruitcake

I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to tell us where the alleged event occurred, unless of course it was at a residential site. That would make sense, but not otherwise.
The site may have cropped up before. There may be information on this forum about that site. Regulars may have information about the site that could be useful to you, but we know none of this because you haven't told us where it happened, and have redacted the name of the landowner and the location.

You say you believe everything in the contract is in order, despite parts of it being redacted by the claimant. Can you say for certain that what has been hidden is of no value to you? Are you at least going to use the information from the Redactions in Disclosure thread, written by a solicitor who posts on this forum, that I posted earlier?

Are you going to use the information about the Companies Act I posted?

Anything you aver in your WS and at the hearing must be considered by the judge. Whether it will win the case for you cannot be known, but I guarantee that it will not be considered if you do not mention it.

Of course, you are not required to take our/my advice, but I cannot understand why you are so reluctant to allow us to help you.