.png)
.png)
Mr. Shanks provided the claimants with the 'wrong contract'...
Stuart Shanks provided the claimant with a contract that stated they were able to let the unit, this was also backed up with site rules. These were signed by two employees at Billing prior to the claimant. If the contract was incorrect how was this missed, twice? If it was meant only for the Billing site, not the Cogenhoe site, why did it have Cogenhoe details on it?
​
Why would Mr. Shanks have a copy of paperwork at the Cogenhoe site that was meant for the Billing site? Could it be that he knew the reason for purchase by the claimant was ONLY as he wished to let it out? Meaning he could ONLY secure the sale (and his commission) if he presented a contract that stated he could do so? The claimant never received physical copies of the contract. Mr Shanks provided only blurry pictures of the aforementioned via his personal email address after months of chasing.
​
What does Fraudulent misrepresentation mean? A knowingly false assertion intended to mislead another and make them agree to a contract because of that misrepresentation. Fraudulent misrepresentation is a misrepresentation made where the representor knows the statement is false.
​
.png)
.png)
January 2022 - Response from Pure Leisure/Royal Resorts solicitors.​
A. Official communication from Pure Leisure/Royal Resorts solicitors.
B. They claim that Cogenhoe operates a strict no lettings policy and the paperwork relates to Billing Aquadrome, a matter overlooked in error by Billings staff at the time of signature.
C. The purchase agreement can be seen here which has Cogenhoes address.
D. Facebook post from January 2022 which shows that even at the time of the letter being sent there were still people letting units at Cogenhoe under Mr. Shanks management.
.png)
June 2022 - Billings Defence A. No admission made that Mr. Shanks met the client B. Message between Mr. Shanks and the client, showing that Mr. Shanks met with the client.
June 2022 - Billings Defence
Claiming that Mr. Shanks was aware that there was a strict no letting policy.
They also deny that the defendant tolerated any occupier at Cogenhoe using their units for holiday lets. Therefore as a byproduct of this defence the misrepresentation made by Mr Shanks, was fraudulent.
June 2022 - Billings Defence Continued
​
A. The defence claim that the licence agreement was intended for Billing and not Cogenhoe.
​
B. Licence agreement showing lets allowed
C. Master page of the licence agreement which clearly shows the address as Cogenhoe.
​
There is an implication here from the defendant, that as the logo for Billing Aquadrome is on the contract, this makes it only applicable to Billing, however, as you can see, this is not the case as the address is Cogenhoe and the logo is Billling as they are the parent compnay to Cogenhoe.
​
​
​
June 2022 - Billings Defence states that the claimant was not prohibited from letting the unit in the first year. They claim above that we were given the contract for Billing and that Mr. Shanks did not allow letting onsite. Both statements cannot be true. If the claimant let the unit (which they did) then as the site manager Mr. Shanks was aware this was happening.
June 2022 - Billings Defence Statement of truth signed by Chelsey.
Current Legal Advice.
The claimant sought advice following Royale Life's administration and change of ownership. The claimant has found there is a strong case against Mr. Shanks and Pure Leisure due to the purchase begin made which Pure Leisure was the parent company of Billing Aqaudrome Ltd. Namely the evidence that Mr. Shanks was aware that there are no rentals allowed at Cogenhoe, which he stated in May 2020, 5 months prior to the sale he made under the pretence letting was allowed.
Below is a Solicitors professional opinion on the evidence
In May of 2020, on a public Facebook page Mr. Shanks acknowledges that he is aware there should be NO RENTALS at Cogenhoe. The secret facebook group is the only page where it is openly discussed that renting occurs. The claimant was only ever contacted by Mr. Shanks through his personal email and Facebook which potentially shows he was deliberately covering his tracks.
​​​
As we can see below Mr. Shanks was absolutely aware that there should have been no renting allowed at Cogenhoe, on a public group he stated this in May 2020 (5 months prior to the purchase made by the claimants) when asked by a member of the public. However in the private Facebook group you can see Mr. Shanks allowed a number of people to let their lodges for years prior to and after his public statement acknowledging he was aware there was no letting allowed. To reiterate it is PROVABLE Mr Shanks knew lettings/rentals were not allowed on the Cognehoe site at anytime and committed fraudulent misrepresentation when selling to the claimant.
