IT IS ORDERED THAT
Since the Claimant is a limited company and the name of signatory to application is blank I will not grant an order without knowing the name and status of signatory to possession claim.
For all the whining that FMOTLs do about improper seals, wet ink signatures, unpaid fees, invalid copies and so forth, here's a legitimate paperwork flaw, and they have nothing to say about it. The judge even ruled in their favor, by initially refusing to grant the possession order.
Though I suppose they can't draw attention to this, because it undermines the "evil corrupt judges" narrative they need to push. And because the solution to such errors is to simply correct them, and re-submit the paperwork. But they're also too stupid to exclude it from what they post to the Internet about their cases.