Appeal refused by IAS

Herzlos

esmerobbo wrote: »

By continuing to refer to Elliott v Loake would indicate that it surely can not be anyone with legal training adjudicating on these appeals. Would a solicitor/barrister make a written statement that a person is a liar, without the protection of a court?

Not at all. But remember these people aren't looking for something that'll win in court, they just want something that to the layman looks like it'd win it court.

Elliott v Loake is utterly inapplicable in a parking case, but it's the only one they've found they can twist to get a precedent for assuming the keeper was the driver.

It's totally misleading and should be referred to the SRA and Trading Standards.

The_Deep

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:

Not a good basis on which to call the OP a liar, and possibly libellous imo.