IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Elliot -v- Loake, complaint to the SRA

2

Comments

  • pappa_golf
    pappa_golf Posts: 8,895 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    DoaM wrote: »
    Back to the original topic ... did the SRA ever respond to the complaint?

    yes!!


    in reply to the question:

    Please take whatever action you deem appropriate.

    they kept the free bar open at the xmas part for another hour
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    DoaM wrote: »
    Back to the original topic ... did the SRA ever respond to the complaint?

    No idea, but I just wonder how many other incompetent solicitors hide under the SRA banner .....
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    did the SRA ever respond to the complaint?


    Yes, salt of the earth, clean as a man called David.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    hoohoo wrote: »
    They are now trying CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453

    The driver had implied authority from the vehicle keeper to enter into any parking contract. Therefore the keeper is responsible.

    Can't see this fooling many judges, but you never know.
    How on earth did Perky bring evidence to support that argument? Was the driver an employee or did they rely in turn on Elliott -v- Loake or Barnard -v- Sully?

    (I can't find the judgment :))
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    HO87 wrote: »
    How on earth did Perky bring evidence to support that argument? Was the driver an employee or did they rely in turn on Elliott -v- Loake or Barnard -v- Sully?

    (I can't find the judgment :))

    The only thing I can find is the judgment rejecting the application to appeal.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1453.html

    It seems it was acknowledged by AJH Films Ltd that the driver at the time would have been one of their employees. And I suppose in those circumstances in an employee and employer context the tort of vicarious liability may kick in. However, I can't see how this case has any relevance to the 99% of cases on here that relate to private individuals going about their own personal business.
  • bargepole
    bargepole Posts: 3,231 Forumite
    Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    Someone sent me a report of a case that was heard at Skipton on Tuesday..

    Rep asserts that Claimant relies on E v L as establishing that keeper was driver on BOP.

    Judge: “So, if I let someone drive my car, and they went to a petrol station and filled up, then drove off, or if they ran a red light or ran someone over, would I be liable?"

    Rep: “No, because that would be different. That's criminal”.

    Judge: “Well so is Elliot v Loake”

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
  • DoaM
    DoaM Posts: 11,863 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    I saw that on Pranky's blog. :D

    What's criminal is that PPC's are even trying to assert E v L
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    DoaM wrote: »
    I saw that on Pranky's blog. :D

    What's criminal is that PPC's are even trying to assert E v L

    Yes, here it is

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    What's criminal is that PPC's are even trying to assert E v L

    What is criminal is that their solicitors allow it to go to court, lose, and charge their clients for their time.

    However, as the SRA are relaxed about it, until a PPC sues their solicitor, (read PP's latest blog), they are getting away with it.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • peter_the_piper
    peter_the_piper Posts: 30,268 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Of course they will, they will try any lever to get victims to cough up. Most victims will believe they are guilty of an offence and because ppc can quote a real court case(ignoring the fact it is not germain) then they must be righ.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards