Elliot -v- Loake, complaint to the SRA

The_Deep

Just a thought

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wish to lodge a complaint against one of your members Right, Hassle, Lyre and Bowlocks.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I attach a copy of a letter dated xxxxxxx which I have received from them concerning a parking event on private land. You will see that they state that they will be relying on Elliott v Loake to prove that I was the driver. As far as I can recall, it was a relativr.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Elliott v Loake was a case in a Magistrates court concerning a hit and run driver who lied to the police but was convicted as spots of paint on the victim's car were found to match the paint on his car. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Quoting this to a non-legally trained consumer can only be either because RHL & B are incompetent and have failed to do due diligence, or that they are deliberately try to intimidate me.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In e other case, I believe this to be most unsolicitory behaviourt, and likely to bring your profession into disrepute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Please take whatever action you deem appropriate. [/FONT]

pappa_golf

The_Deep wrote: »

Just a thought

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wish to lodge a complaint against one of your members Right, Hassle, Lyre and Bowlocks.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I attach a copy of a letter dated xxxxxxx which I have received from them concerning a parking event on private land. You will see that they state that they will be relying on Elliott v Loake to prove that I was the driver. As far as I can recall, it was a relativr.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Elliott v Loake was a case in a Magistrates court concerning a hit and run driver who lied to the police but was convicted as spots of paint on the victim's car were found to match the paint on his car. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Quoting this to a non-legally trained consumer can only be either because RHL & B are incompetent and have failed to do due diligence, or that they are deliberately try to intimidate me.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]In e other case, I believe this to be most unsolicitory behaviourt, and likely to bring your profession into disrepute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Please take whatever action you deem appropriate. [/FONT]

None ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The_Deep

That is somewhat cynical PG, the SRA have struck off a huge number of naughty boys, 174 pages of them here.


http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/search/JudgementSearch.aspx

pappa_golf

yes I know , and a Mr Swartz/swart/etc etc has been reprimanded ,it took about 4 yrs for them to act however "his" employer has found a way past the "reprimand" , he is still signing away , but as PART of the legal team (of one) now

The_Deep

Another nail in the coffin


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2018-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Another nail in the coffin


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2018-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10

Thanks Deep, soon, it will be very difficult for the monkeys who take motorists to court, to offer any substantial evidence that a judge would believe.

The Skipton judge was a smart cookie. he led the parking company rep into a delightful trap and the rep fell for it.
BUT, the judge told the truth which is more than BWLegal, Gladstones and Wright Hassall do.

Game on now, it's easy to dismiss the Beavis case and now, a judge saying this .....

"Judge: “So, if I let someone drive my car, and they went to a petrol station and filled up, then drove off, or if they ran someone over, would I be liable?"

Rep: “No, because that would be different. That's criminal”.

Judge: “Well so is Elliot v Loake"


Perfect and simple

Wonder what other archive cases BWlegal and the other dodgy predators will drag up next.

hoohoo

beamerguy wrote: »

Wonder what other archive cases BWlegal and the other dodgy predators will drag up next.

They are now trying CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453

The driver had implied authority from the vehicle keeper to enter into any parking contract. Therefore the keeper is responsible.

Can't see this fooling many judges, but you never know.

pappa_golf

hoohoo wrote: »

They are now trying CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453

The driver had implied authority from the vehicle keeper to enter into any parking contract. Therefore the keeper is responsible.

Can't see this fooling many judges, but you never know.

seems the opposite to what lease/hire/company car paperwork states

beamerguy

hoohoo wrote: »

They are now trying CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453

The driver had implied authority from the vehicle keeper to enter into any parking contract. Therefore the keeper is responsible.

Can't see this fooling many judges, but you never know.

How stupid ..... in writing or just chinese whispers. That is even worse than the Loake rubbish they quote

Oh well, it's what happens in desperation

DoaM

Back to the original topic ... did the SRA ever respond to the complaint?

henrik777

hoohoo wrote: »

They are now trying CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453

The driver had implied authority from the vehicle keeper to enter into any parking contract. Therefore the keeper is responsible.

Can't see this fooling many judges, but you never know.

It would be interesting if the registered keeper left the vehicle in someone elses care whilst they were on holiday/business as they would be the keeper but not the defendant.