6 Years n and I've Got a PCN...?

the Loake ruling was in a criminal case where the police used foresic science , not in a civil parking case

"Elliot and Loake is a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.

The Claimant's witness statement was adjudged to be less than useful, and indeed part of it was entirely destructive to the case."


read:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

Elliott (or was it Loake) drove into the other's vehicle and did a runner A policeman found specks of paint on his vehicle which matched the paint on the other vehicle. He denied it and gave a false alibi. However the police matched forensically matched the paint.

As you will see, they do not have a case.

For a solicitor, using this criminal case to badger a witness in a money claim is, in my mind, totally misleading and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. It merits a complaint to the SRA.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page

The points in the EvL case were

1. The paint samples taken at the scene and later from the def's vehicle which forensically matched.

2. The def's denial that his vehicle was involved in the collision and claimed that the damage to his vehicle had been caused otherwise. (A proven lie).

3. He admitted that no other person had use of his vehicle.

4. The vehicle was now parked outside the def's house, he was in possession of the keys and confirmed that it had not been stolen.

So, what else could the appeal Judges do armed with the above, other than to throw it out.

The points in your case are -

1.There is no forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, CCTV etc) linking you to the parking area.

2. You do not deny that your vehicle was parked where they say.

3. You have not denied that 'others' had use of your vehicle.

4. The vehicle is no longer in your possession but still is in possession of someone who had the right to drive it on the day of the contravention. However, you are not obliged to name that person. Plus, seeing as it was a date pre-Pofa then they cannot hold the keeper responsible.

fil_cad wrote: »

If the SRA were really concerned they would have got their fingar out by now and delt with it, something stinks. :eek:

it took them about 4 yrs to slap swarts hands , !


boys club , not settup to help customers , just protect thier members

you might also consider threatening a counterclaim against VCS for breach of the Data Protection Act, schedule 1, principle 5: "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or purposes".

Just because 5 years is within the Limitation Act time limit for starting proceedings does not mean it was necessary. The dormant period, when you heard nothing and very reasonably presumed the case was closed, was palpably NOT necessary to achieve the purpose.

It's highly relevant because it puts you at a disadvantage in defending the claim - memories fade, evidence harder to pull together etc. and they know it. As this is unfair, it's also in breach of the first DPA principle: "Personal data shall be processed fairly ..."

Also you could complain to the DVLA because this is a typical PPC tactic and should be stopped.