Elliott versus Loake

jlfrs · 3 June 2015 at 9:56AM

Hello all,

I'm a (relative) newbie and I am hoping to gain some insight into a PCN I have chosen to fight (upto a point).

I parked on private land in a car park with clear signage. However, there was one bank of bays where the sign was missing, and all the bay numbers were black, which to me looked as though they were painted over. I assumed the permit requirement in these bays was suspended.
Anyway, I was duly ticketed by the operator, PCP Enforcement Agency. I took photographs as evidence and rejected the invoice. I received a standard rejection letter from them within a few days.
Following this website's advice, I took my case to the IAS using the template letter, citing inadequate signage and bay numbering as my reasons for not entering into a contract with the landowner, I declined to name the driver.

The IAS has backed up the operator and named "Elliott versus Loake" as a precedent for stating the owner as the driver.

So, my questions to anyone who has read this far are as follows:

A: Is this ruling relevant in any way?

B: Assuming I receive a letter from the operator demanding money, is it really worth taking any further?

c: If I do take it further, to test their mettle, what is likely to happen? In other words, the chain of events.

d: Assuming there is no way out but to pay, how long can it be avoided before incurring additional costs?

Many Thanks,
jon

Grimble · 3 June 2015 at 10:08AM

Why pay? all you will get is a lot of meaningless bog paper from debt collectors and fake solicitors letters threatening this that and the other, if this went to court you stand a very good chance of winning on signage, keep everything and only reply to LBCC or Court papers. IAS are a joke.

atilla · 3 June 2015 at 10:10AM

Good luck to them with that one.
Have a looksie here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2498

esmerobbo · 3 June 2015 at 10:14AM

"Elliott versus Loake" They are calling you a liar!

nigelbb · 3 June 2015 at 10:22AM

Elliott v Loake is not a great precedent for establishing the presumption that the owner/RK was the driver as it concerns a a case where the RK lied when claiming that he had not been driving & that the accident damage on his car was from another prang when there was forensic evidence that his car was the one involved.

The owner manifestly lied about the damage to the car. The obvious inference to be drawn is that he is deliberately manufacturing the lie in order to escape responsibility for the accident which he caused when he was driving the motor-car.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2498&st=0&p=21061&#entry21061

The conviction was not because the appellant was the registered keeper but because he lied when questioned about the incident. As it was proved unquestionably that his vehicle that was involved in the incident then why did he have no knowledge of the driver at that time? The car wasn't stolen, the keys never left his possession, no-one had permission to use it and there was forensic evidence that showed it was his car but he still denied being the driver. It was the lying that caused the conviction and not the fact that he was the RK.

There may be a general presumption on the balance of probabilities that the driver is the RK but it can easily be rebutted.

atilla · 3 June 2015 at 10:24AM

Especially when not obliged to divvy up any names.

Herzlos · 3 June 2015 at 10:28AM

Elliott Vs Loake relies on forensic evidence identifying the car; a unique mix of paint and filler, collected by a sharp police officer.

It also involves the keeper stating that he gave no-one else permission to use the car, that it wasn't stolen and he had the keys, but was not the driver, and had already lied about the damage:

Looking at the particular facts of this case with common sense, we have a small blue sports motor-car being driven at night and a prima facie inference that it is being driven by its owner, or someone with the owners permission. The owner says that he had given nobody else permission to drive it. The owner manifestly lied about the damage to the car. The obvious inference to be drawn is that he is deliberately manufacturing the lie in order to escape responsibility for the accident which he caused when he was driving the motor-car.

So they are saying that because the driver lied about the damage to avoid responsibility, and were by their own admission the only one that could have been driving, was also lying about not driving.

None of that applies in a private parking incident. There's no evidence for the driver to lie about, nor any admission about who could/couldn't be using the car. ANPR might be enough to identify the car, but there's still no forensic evidence that it was the same car.

Essentially, they've found a case where the keeper is assumed to be the driver, and ignored all the actual details, to try and make it sound credible. Their solicitor would probably get a serious telling off in court for trying to cite it.

They won't use the IAS appeal in court because it's as bent as a bottle of crisps, so now it's done and you've shown due dilligence, continue to ignore them until the unlikely occurrence that they actually try court.

jlfrs · 3 June 2015 at 11:01AM

Thanks for this. It's easy to get emotional about these things.
The operator provided evidence to show there was a sign 2 spaces away which was true. The IAS cited this in their so called verdict yesterday.
At this stage I am minded to let them write to.me demanding payment. What should I do, reply to say I reject the invoice or ignore it? If they take it to court, will be liable for any extra costs and at what point do bailiffs become involved?
Another factor is the operator, PCP Enforcement Agency and whether they have a history of going all the way.
I guess the Elliott v loache ruling matters not as they don't need to name the driver as the owner is responsible under law if the driver isn't known or named.
Any views on these one and all?

Redx · 3 June 2015 at 11:17AM

ignore it, if they wish to take it to court, let a judge decide

if you lost, and didnt pay the judgment within 28 days, then a CCJ can be asked for and enforcement can occur (bailiffs)

until then , nothing can happen

if you paid the judgment, nothing can happen

Herzlos · 3 June 2015 at 11:18AM

jlfrs wrote: »

I guess the Elliott v loache ruling matters not as they don't need to name the driver as the owner is responsible under law if the driver isn't known or named.

Incorrect; the keeper is only liable if POFA 2012 was invoked and complied to, which it wasn't or they wouldn't be saying that "on the balance of probabilities it was the driver" (their current approach to sidestep the POFA 2012 requirements).

The PPC will know that the appeal was rejected, and will send you a chaser shortly. Just ignore it unless they send an official Letter Before Action or you get something that's been stamped from the courts.

If that happens, we can help you deal with it, but until then just ignore (file away) all of the crap they send you out with bigger and bigger red letters, even if it pretends to come from a solicitors or debt collector.

ColliesCarer · 3 June 2015 at 11:39AM

Follow Redx's and others advice and ignore.

PCP Enforcement Agency (aka Parkshield) issued precisely 0 court claims in 2014 (source is FOI request 96114) and whilst past behaviour can't be taken as a guarantee they won't change their MO in the future (and they have 6 years from the date of event to decide) it hopefully answers your question about how likely they are to pursue this in court.

Elliott versus Loake

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free