Fluttering ticket parking fine

ParkingScum

Yes all good points thank you all. I'm putting a section about land owner authority into my witness statement where I'll summarize all this.

ParkingScum

Fruitcake good point RE the company on contract never existing. I'll go with that then have supporting notes ready to explain that statement if it gets to court. I'd rather it be ambiguous on the WS.

ParkingScum

I still think 6.5 on the contract states it rolls on forever though. The sentence states 'the Term or Extended Term as the case may be' meaning it rolls on from the original term then rolls on from the extended term thereafter. Does no one else agree here?

Fruitcake

ParkingScum said:

I still think 6.5 on the contract states it rolls on forever though. The sentence states 'the Term or Extended Term as the case may be' meaning it rolls on from the original term then rolls on from the extended term thereafter. Does no one else agree here?

No, because it mentions one specific rollover of 36 months as being "the extended term." No other period is mentioned, and nothing else can be "the extended term" other than the first and only single rollover. Anyway, let the judge decide.

Sadly though, we have seen cases where a judge said, well the PPC has signs at the site and is operating at the site, so despite tha lack of a contract, they must have a contract with the landowner.

ParkingScum

Yeah I know. Worth a punt though. So I'm putting these points in for Landowner Authority:

Company doesn’t exist (Can expand on this at the time)

Names of signatories redacted why?

Address of company redacted why?

Contract out of date no new one produced.

Do I need to include a copy of their contract in my WS evidence or can I just refer to it knowing the judge has a copy from them?

ParkingScum

Do I need to include the land registry search in my evidence. VCS would have time to produce another contract as evidence then upon receiving my WS.

Coupon-mad

I would still include it, otherwise what you are saying is hearsay.

Fruitcake

Don't forget to include Hancock v Promontoria/redactions in disclosure being inappropriate, and add a copy of the transcript. 
Don't ask why the redactions have been made. Make statements. Aver there must be something dodgy otherwise there is no reason to redact. 

nopcns

Generally, if a contract specifies an initial term followed by the possibility of extension for another term, it would typically require some form of action or agreement from both parties to trigger the extension. This could involve mutual consent to extend the contract for another term or it could specify conditions under which the contract would automatically renew.

If the contract is silent on the issue of automatic renewal or extension, it may not be automatically renewed. To avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity, a contract should explicitly state whether it will be automatically renewed, the conditions for such renewal, and whether there are any options for cancellation or termination. If parties want the contract to continue indefinitely until one party cancels it, explicit language to that effect should be included in the contract, such as "in perpetuity" or "until either party cancels it."

ParkingScum

Fruitcake said:

Don't forget to include Hancock v Promontoria/redactions in disclosure being inappropriate, and add a copy of the transcript. 
Don't ask why the redactions have been made. Make statements. Aver there must be something dodgy otherwise there is no reason to redact. 

Can you expand on this? Is this with reference to landowner contract?