Me and Excel - At war!

nicechap

Great result, well done to everyone involved!

bargepole

Yes, an excellent and fully detailed report, from an OP who was well prepared for the battle.

The surprising aspect of all this is that the PPCs have now had over 4 years to get their ducks in a row regarding keeper liability under POFA, and yet most of them fail miserably to issue NTKs which are compliant with the legislation. It's not exactly rocket science.

Then they compound the errors by pursuing cases to court on the presumption that keeper was the driver, using those bastions of legal incompetence, BW Legal and Gladstones, who are still trotting out the tired and discredited Elliott v Loake case which most Judges have ruled has no relevance whatsoever.

I suppose it proves that if you pay peanuts, you do indeed get monkeys.

Anonamouse

Congrats to all involved. It takes guts to stand your ground in court, even if you know you are in the right and the distress and anxiety must at times seem out of all proportion. Well done for seeing it through and getting the right result.

HO87

Well done indeed.

However, I think bargepole's comment does a serious injustice to monkeys.

However, the continued reliance on the tired E -v- L; the use of non-compliant Notices and the failure to adhere to deadlines has nothing to do with the a lack of intelligence or understanding. Rather by their very widespread nature they have all the appearance of being symptoms of the same malaise that relies on Average Joe not connecting the dots and Government adopting the inevitable heads-in-the-sand approach and off-handedly dismissing any suggestion that these are anything more than "isolated examples" of bad practice.

From a cynic's point of view all of this can only be driven by money. Well, can you come up with any better explanation that fits the facts? The same cynic who'd observe that some greedy private parking wonks and their fellow-travellers have grown very fat over the last four years on their multi-million pound incomes and in an effort to wring even more from the scam seem to have abandoned any pretence at adhering to the law. Bearing in mind that this was the same law they ran to as one in 2010 squealing that the forums were advising people to ignore their speculative invoices, they were losing money and landlords rights were being damaged and that they must have "keeper liability" to cure the problem.

The truth is and always has been that this has never had anything to do with protecting land owner's rights - other than in passing - and everything to do with keeping the get-rich-quick scheme afloat. The way in which defendant's and the courts are treated with complete contempt demonstrates what is really thought about the law in certain quarters.

This is not the product of a lack of understanding or forethought. This is the product of plain, unadulterated, greedy cynicism.

Lamilad

bargepole wrote: »

Then they compound the errors by pursuing cases to court on the presumption that keeper was the driver, using those bastions of legal incompetence, BW Legal and Gladstones, who are still trotting out the tired and discredited Elliott v Loake case which most Judges have ruled has no relevance whatsoever.

Indeed! Judge SR was vocal in her contempt for EvL as an argument. I haven't included it above as I can't remember at what point it came up. She said she was familiar with the case and had heard it argued many times before. She distinguished it and said in had no relevance in civil cases.

yotmon

I would like to ask why do the judges allow such cases to be heard when there isn't a scrap of evidence to prove the claimants case. The first thing that needs establishing, is whether the claimant is pursuing the defendant as the driver, or as the keeper which would have to rely on pofa.

1.Do you have evidence that the defendant was the driver ?

or 2. Are you relying on keeper liability and if so, have you fully complied with Pofa.

Simple questions and once it is established which route they wish to take - stick to it ! None of this going back and fro.

beamerguy

yotmon wrote: »

I would like to ask why do the judges allow such cases to be heard when there isn't a scrap of evidence to prove the claimants case. The first thing that needs establishing, is whether the claimant is pursuing the defendant as the driver, or as the keeper which would have to rely on pofa.

1.Do you have evidence that the defendant was the driver ?

or 2. Are you relying on keeper liability and if so, have you fully complied with Pofa.

Simple questions and once it is established which route they wish to take - stick to it ! None of this going back and fro.

The courts are not set up to spot scammers who file roboclaims which are dumbo claims. Once in the system un noticed, they are fed to courts around the country on a timewasting exercise

It's only when the judge of the day sees her/his caseload for the day that they realise ... whoops there are scammers in court today

The case has to be heard and I am convinced that judges have already made up their minds but they still have to form a judgement in their room of doom
As we are seeing, the "doom" is now applied to the claimant

The likes of Excel, VCS AND BWLegal are now known for their utter rubbish as it's the same boring old evidence they try to produce.