Parking Eye Lose in Court Again

Kite2010

Poor Parking Eye.

Go on, be foolish, appeal.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

There is no pedantry here, only an internet lawyer mis-advising others about how to conduct themselves in a court of law.

I'd be more concerned about the armchair warrior advising people not to raise the question of an advocate not understanding who he represents in court.

bargepole

This is all going off on an irrelevant tangent.

The Landowner is not a party to any proceedings between PE and a motorist, so cannot be represented in court.

The LPC Law advocates are instructed by, and paid for by, PE, and they are given instructions that PE is entitled to bring the claim in its own name, by virtue of the authority granted by the landowner.

If, as often happens, a Judge decides that argument doesn't hold water, they can't suddenly change tack and argue a case on behalf of the landowner.

In some cases, PE have been invited to substitute the landowner as the claimant. They have resolutely declined to do so.

The_Deep

I agree with Bargepole, there is far too much ill-considered advice being proffered on MSE.

bod1467

The_Deep wrote: »

I agree with Bargepole, there is far too much ill-considered advice being proffered on MSE.

I don't think that's what Mr. Pole was suggesting at all.

Stroma

The_Deep wrote: »

I agree with Bargepole, there is far too much ill-considered advice being proffered on MSE.

I would say it's the same across all the forums that deal with this matter! It's a learning curve not just for the newbies seeking advice, but for the people offering advice. All I can say is the advice is free, if people want real legal advice then go and see a solicitor!

That will cost hundreds unless you have legal cover under some sort of insurance. And the advice you get from them will be very generic to say the least, unless you get someone who knows this issue and contract law.

The_Deep

I am not suggesting that this sub-forum regularly provides bad advice, it does not, but MSE in general has many posters who know very little about subjects on which they profess expertise.

There is one chap, a regular poster on this sub-forum, with approaching 7,000 posts, and claims over 40 years in the telecommunications industry, about whom I had to complain to the administration. His advice was several years out of date, and he had also been pulled up by another poster for offering incorrect advice.

The_Deep

bod1467 wrote: »

I don't think that's what Mr. Pole was suggesting at all.

Neither do I. I have not suggested that it was.

spacey2012

This is the basis of the argument.

Party A owns the land : Only party A can offer consideration on contract as he is the landowner.
Any managements or agents have no conveyance of this land and can only claim there own loses as in locus Standi.
The agents sues the defendant on the basis they authority to manage the parking and recover costs on behalf of party A .
Yet the agent has instructed and employed the solicitor, do they have sufficient contract to transfer Locus Standi principle to on behalf of A to the defendant.
If not the legal advocate has no rights to act in audience on behalf of party A as they can only sit on behalf of those they directly represent.

What we have seen in around 4-5 cases where challenged the judge agrees no locus standi and out goes the case.
The LPC goon attempts to change hats and gets slung out.
Hence why this argument is always worth entering in to any defence.
Just who is this LPC representative representing ?.

What we have seen is defendants raise this argument almost by accident.
It has worked, run with it.

Don't like it ?
Go blow parking eye off a bit more...

MothballsWallet

prosnap wrote: »

The day of atonement gets even closer for the amoeba that are known as Parking Eye

Now, that's insulting to amoeba - they're Einstein or Tesla compared to Parking Eye