[2024] UKUT 180 (LC)

Fecha: 19-Jun-2024

The pitch fee review form

The pitch fee review form

41.

The pitch fee review form was signed (with a typed signature) by a Mrs T Cercel. Mr Sunderland said that she was a member of the accounts staff of the Wyldecrest group, and was authorised by the director of the appellant to sign the forms on behalf of the company, but did not produce a witness statement to verify the authorisation. The FTT acknowledged that there was no requirement in the statute for the form to be signed by a director or officer of the company. It said at paragraph 55:

“The Tribunal is satisfied that the affixing of the name “Mrs Cercel” on the form was for the purpose of providing a point of contact in the accounts department at Wyldecrest House. The Tribunal finds that Mrs Cercel did not sign the document on behalf of the Directors of The Beaches Management Limited.”

42.

At paragraph 87 it concluded:

“There was no evidence on the face of the form the capacity in which Mrs T Cercel was purportedly signing the form. The Applicant adduced no evidence from either a Director of The Beaches Management Limited or Mrs Cercel about her authority to sign the Form. The Tribunal confirms its finding that a director or an authorised person had not signed the Form on behalf of the Applicant as site owner.”

43.

So what troubled the FTT, it seems, was the absence of evidence, despite the presence of explanation.

44.

I do not understand why the FTT was troubled by this point. There is no requirement for a signature in the statute; the requirement consists only in the presence of the space for a signature in box 6 on the prescribed form. A form submitted with the owner’s name and address (which of course are very important to the recipient) could arguably be regarded as in “substantially to the like effect” as the prescribed form (see paragraph 17 above). It seems to me that it is open to the owner to authorise whomsoever it wishes to sign the form on its behalf, and that in the absence of positive evidence that the signatory was not so authorised there is no basis on which the FTT could have found that Mrs Cercel was not authorised to sign the form.

45.

The FTT’s misgiving about the signature was unfounded and I find that the pitch fee review form was valid.