VCS defeated in Liverpool Court.: No keeper liability

Loadsofchildren123

The key is in being regulated.

This means working for a firm or as a sole practitioner, with a practising certificate (solicitor) or in a chambers (barristers).

An unemployed solicitor or barrister hawking their services as an "advocate" via the likes of Elms has no RoA, because they are not regulated. You then have to look to see if they come under any of the exemptions, and the authorities and the statute say they don't.

It's the being employed, either in a firm or as a sole practitioner (solicitors), or in a chambers (barristers), which makes you regulated. I'm not sure about in-house, there are special rules for them, but I am sure they are likewise regulated.

[Deleted User]

@lamilad, for clarification: You may choose to remain on the roll and not renew your practising certificate. If you adopt that course you MUST describe yourself as solicitor (non practising) or not use the "s-word" at all....

Whereas I said all solicitors will have RoA in the small claims court that is, of course, correct as that description would mean they had a practising certificate.

Lamilad

Thanks Johnersh and LoC, really great to have you guys around to explain the legal stuff.

So to clarify, a solicitor (non practising) is not regulated and has no RoA?

[Deleted User]

Sorry this is hard to explain in really simple terms.

1. RoA as is a practice certificate privilege. The fact you are not permitted to use the protected term solicitor without a certificate, is a rule intended to prevent advising or acting in a capacity as a solicitor without approval from the regulator.

2. A non practising solicitor remains on the roll (register). In that sense it's a bit like a retired GP still appears on the medical register, but can't actually practice medicine/prescribe drugs once their validation expires.

3. a non practising solicitor remains regulated insofar as they could be struck off the roll for relevant offences (dishonesty offences are the usual career enders!) If that power did not exist the individual could just pay a fee to renew their certificate.

This is all a bit technical, where I suspect the vast majority of legal agencies are sending in personnel with a different issue - comparatively newly qualified barristers who have not yet been able to secure a pupillage to complete their training. In both cases it's my understanding that one of the exemptions would need to apply or the court would need to give permission.

Lamilad

Transcript of the judgement now available for this case.

Will assist anyone defending a not the driver > no keeper liability case.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/new-transcript-keeper-not-liable-if.html?m=1

Coupon-mad

Brilliant stuff. Well done Lamilad and Miss Quayle!

MadHatter752

Very interesting read.. similar thing with my case though.... said VCS didn't act unreasonably. I don't understand this... surely taking someone to court just to scare them into paying when you have no chance of success and threatening CCJs and bailiffs in every letter to you is unreasonable? Anyone know what a Judge would class as "unreasonable behaviour"?

[Deleted User]

I think the point here is that an award of costs here is for the conduct of the litigation, not the decision to bring the claim in the first place. Otherwise every lost claim would be subject to such an order.

Halsey v Milton Keynes (failure to mediate) and Ferguson v British Gas (8 months of aggressive debt collection and automated correspondence/harrassment) could be helpful if deployed effectively and high level authorities for the court to consider - in the right cases.

The_Deep

Otherwise every lost claim would be subject to such an order.

Is this such a bad thing? I have taken three people to SCC. In each case, although I won in each case, I ended up out of pocket.

Apart from this industry, I do not know of any other which indulges in such frivolous litigation.

beamerguy

MadHatter752 wrote: »

Very interesting read.. similar thing with my case though....
said VCS didn't act unreasonably. I don't understand this... surely taking someone to court
just to scare them into paying when you have no chance of success and threatening CCJs and
bailiffs in every letter to you is unreasonable? Anyone know what a Judge would class as "unreasonable behaviour"?

You are of course correct, any normal person would say the same.
There is a huge problem in the county court system in that there is no continuity with
the judges regarding unreasonable behaviour and what it means.

This even continues up the chain of the court system in general.
Even the Supreme court gave no due thought process in their case over Beavis
and now the county courts are bearing the brunt of their unforgivable actions

The door was opened for a cowboy operation to have a free hand.

Whilst there will always be CC judges who fail miserably in their
understanding, and should be re-trained, we are now seeing the
open door starting to close on the cowboys as the "wise" judges
are seeing what this huge scam is all about.

One illustration of a bad judge shows here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5591025

POST #27

"The judge ruled that on the chance of probability I was likely be the driver"

On the chance of probability, this judge should be re-trained or
retired as he/she simply does not live in the real world and most
certainly is not up to speed with the great parking scam.

Until the judiciary sorts itself out, we can expect a mixture of wins and losses but .....
the wins are now coming in and will continue to do so

Whereas, not long ago, the PPC and their dodgy solicitors felt pretty certain that they would win,
nowadays there is no certainty for them.

It is indeed the actions of Excel/VCS and BWLegal with their ridiculous claims that has
caused this turnaround