Elliott versus Loake

jlfrs

Very interesting. I wonder if the reason cases like this get to court is because the operators are desperate for a win to get a precedent set?
Be that as it may, I do think a dual strategy is needed for the operators ( for which there is lots of advice) and the landowners/tenants ( for which there seems little).
Why do people allow companies like Regus to fob them off? Reading the article, seems the whole thing started when Regis said "you can park there for 10 minutes".
Surely to God the whole thing could have been avoided if Regis had got the thing dropped, as they seem to have done in my case?
Bottom line I think is that operators care little about reputation etc but companies like Regus do. A threat to go on social media with a story which could hurt them is more likely to get results rather than an appeal to a better nature or trying to appeal to a better nature.

bazster

Three weeks is perhaps not long enough to conclude it's been dropped, but I too like your style.

Going back to your original point, it seems to me that the key sentence in Elliott vs. Loake is this:

"In my view there was ample evidence which justified the magistrates in this case arriving at the conclusion that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary BMW."

So the judges found evidence as to who was driving. It wasn't an assumption or a presumption, there was evidence - and not just any old evidence, but ample evidence, enough to satisfy the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

What that evidence might've been is irrelevant since the circumstances will differ in each case.

These PPC's will throw out any old irrelevant sh|te in their attempts to intimidate people into paying, and once one of them unearths some new codswallop they all jump on the bandwagon.

bazster

jlfrs wrote: »

Very interesting. I wonder if the reason cases like this get to court is because the operators are desperate for a win to get a precedent set?

Where parking cases get to court it's usually because the scum are playing an intimidation game and it's gone wrong. They don't want to go to court, it costs them far more than they might win, but their calculation is that enough motorists will be intimidated into paying up before a court case. When someone stands up to them, some of the scum (like ParkingEye) will see it through all the way to the court case for the sake of their intimidation operation as whole, whereas others (like CEL) run away.

The case quoted by the Prankster is different because the motorist sued the parking scum. Obviously the sensible thing for the scum to do would've been to back down and pay her, but one suspects Genius Hurley in the background egging them on.

jlfrs wrote: »

Bottom line I think is that operators care little about reputation etc but companies like Regus do. A threat to go on social media with a story which could hurt them is more likely to get results rather than an appeal to a better nature or trying to appeal to a better nature.

Indeed, you need to appeal to their bottom line not to their better nature! This is why, for the more common retail premises cases, we advise people to go to the shop concerned, request to speak to the manager, and have it out with them politely but LOUDLY on the shop floor in front of as many other customers as possible whilst refusing to be led to a private room.

esmerobbo

In Elliot V Locke the appellant said they never gave anybody permission to drive, and the only set of keys were in their procession. In simple terms if the car hit the BMW they must have been in control of the car.

How this so called independent solicitor or barrister can quote this as a rebuttal to "I was not the driver" is beyond comprehension.

I wonder if they would quote this cr4p if the appellant signed their appeal Mr Joe Bloggs QC!

jlfrs

The one time (so far) I demanded the store manager was in my local sainsburys a couple of years ago. I had a few bags split whilst packing my shopping at the till and the checkout woman quipped that they were encouraging customers to use recyclable bags to be kinder to the environment. I balled out first her, then her supervisor and then the Manager sating it wasn't sainsbury policy, they should address their own packaging first before lecturing customers and perhaps use biodegradable bags like coop do. I ended up being walked out and leaving my shopping, probably because there comes a tipping point where a manager adopts the wagon circling mentality and no longer sees the complainant as a customer but a personal threat.
I followed up with emails to sainsbury in Holborn and got a result. Same with Curry who seem to think the sale of goods act is for other companies.
I guess different approaches work for different folk but for me, a factual and short email to senior management copying in customer services usually results in the manager of the local operation being told to sort it out and they care about their jobs enough to lift up the phone and do what has to be done, in this case, get a PCN dropped. 3 weeks may not be long enough to draw conclusions but parks hired had sent their letters quickly. As the 14 days to pay the £100 following IAS'S predictable rejection of the appeal has been exceeded by more than a week, I am predicting a positive outcome.

bazster

And I hope you are right, as you may well be, but sometime these things re-surface even years later!

Businesses trying to extract the urine get short shrift from me too. My latest was getting a payout from Swinton's over a motor insurance policy they screwed up (I suspect deliberately in an attempt to extort a hefty cancellation charge from me). Far from getting their cancellation fee they eventually paid me more than the original premium when I got fed up dealing with the oily rags and sent a very detailed Letter Before Claim to head office.

HO87

The whole approach from IAS has the appearance of being intended to intimidate and belittle and Elliott v Loake fits snugly into that.

Strange that, in fact something of a remarkable coincidence because it seems to be exactly the same approach as that used by Gladstones - from whom the IAS are entirely independent, of course.

The case that used to be thrown about was Barnard v Sully [1931] TLR 557 which was not that dissimilar from Elliott. Seems that someone somewhere is desperately casting around for anything that could form a convenient precedent.

bazster

It's like the old pre-PoFA days with threats of Norwich Pharmacal Orders and God only knows what other tripe being spouted by the PPC's.

HO87

bazster wrote: »

It's like the old pre-PoFA days with threats of Norwich Pharmacal Orders and God only knows what other tripe being spouted by the PPC's.

And all because PPC's simply can't comply with POFA. Well, either can't or won't - and that's before one even starts to consider their contracts...

Hot_Bring

Hmmm ... Fort Dunlop ..... I'm pretty sure someone else has a HUGE office there ..... ah, yes ...... CAPITA !!!!! How long before Parking Eye infest the car park I wonder ?