We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Elliot -v- Loake, complaint to the SRA
Options
Comments
-
What's criminal is that PPC's are even trying to assert E v L
What is criminal is that their solicitors allow it to go to court, lose, and charge their clients for their time.
However, as the SRA are relaxed about it, until a PPC sues their solicitor, (read PP's latest blog), they are getting away with it.
But that case seems to be linked to Trevor Whitehouse (see comments from Patrick Trouserfire :rotfl: - wish I'd thought of that name) who at one time, when clamping was banned, was going to sue the Government. He wouldn't know where to start and Gladstones would blow him out in bubbles.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
H+S litigation = Mr Harg,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
It seems it was acknowledged by AJH Films Ltd that the driver at the time would have been one of their employees. And I suppose in those circumstances in an employee and employer context the tort of vicarious liability may kick in. However, I can't see how this case has any relevance to the 99% of cases on here that relate to private individuals going about their own personal business.
Anyone got a rebuttal to this?
Bw Legal using CPS v AJH Film (2015) in their WS in my case where me, a private individual, is being pursued as keeper and therefore liable for driver who was given PCN in a private no fee car park?0 -
Anyone got a rebuttal to this?
Bw Legal using CPS v AJH Film (2015) in their WS in my case where me, a private individual, is being pursued as keeper and therefore liable for driver who was given PCN in a private no fee car park?
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs3/1973AC127.html0 -
House of Lords-Morgans v Launchbury 1973 (Owner not vicariously liable for driver's actions: (non employment situation))
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs3/1973AC127.html
Be careful with this. There is a presumption of no contractual arrangements between family members unless specifically agreed as a contractual arrangement. There might be a contractual relation between two non-related individuals/vicarious liability.
As with every case, it will come down to the facts of the matter. Employment does make a difference. But so will other commercial arrangements.
E v L was about identity and not liabilityThis is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Anyone got a rebuttal to this?
Bw Legal using CPS v AJH Film (2015) in their WS in my case where me, a private individual, is being pursued as keeper and therefore liable for driver who was given PCN in a private no fee car park?
I would say the pithy exchange from a Judge at Skipton knocks out bit EvL and AJH Films in one go, of course a keeper isn't liable for the conduct of a driver - there is only the POFA or nothing for 'keeper liability':
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html
''Parking company Rep asserts that Claimant relies on E v L as establishing that keeper was driver on Balance Of Probabilities.
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"PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards