Driver/registered keeper under 18

fisherjim

jmccabe wrote: »

Who's that, then? I wasn't made aware that a practising solicitor had responded.

Really? You maybe should read all the information presented on here, the poster openly states it.


I think you are putting all your eggs in one basket with this, however Smart don't like the inside of courts, though it would be interesting in this case to see the outcome.

jmccabe

Redx wrote: »

why would anyone make you aware of that fact or have to state it ?

its not a requirement on signup, but the regulars who come here daily and offer free advice have seen posts where we know when a practising solicitor has posted, of which there may be a handful, and/or people like BARGEPOLE who have CILEX training

it would be wrong of them to actually give proper legal advice on this forum so any OPINION they have given is just that, a personal opinion backed by their legal training and experience but as you are not paying for that advice it has to be taken as an opinion only, but a powerful one given what they do for a living

With all due respect, I don't come here every day, or even regularly, so I have no idea who is, who isn't, and who might have any specific legal training and therefore I think it's extremely unfair for me to be accused of ignoring the comments of such a person when there is clearly no way of me knowing about it!

Don't you?

Redx

yes if that were true, but the fact that she has openly stated that she is a practising solicitor and offering an opinion and it says so in EACH AND EVERY POST she makes on here is a powerful argument against what you are asserting


so WITH RESPECT , READ what people have written in their replies before complaining

jmccabe

Redx wrote: »

yes if that were true, but the fact that she has openly stated that she is a practising solicitor and offering an opinion and it says so in EACH AND EVERY POST she makes on here is a powerful argument against what you are asserting


so WITH RESPECT , READ what people have written in their replies before complaining

Ooops! My apologies; I see it now :-(

What can I say, other than that I've been on these types of sites for decades and, almost all of the time, anything in people's "sigs" are irrelevant and uninteresting, which is why I don't have one.

Umkomaas

I think the bottom line is that Smart are unlikely to even pursue a relatively straightforward case to court. Add a bit of uncertainty into the mix, the odds increase dramatically.

I don't think this is going anywhere.

KeithP

OP, I believe post #15 offers you the best guidance for today.

But that's just an opinion.

jmccabe

Now that I've been guided towards who the practising solicitor is, and their response, I'd like to revisit this..

waamo wrote: »

I think there is a world of difference between parking a car and buying a bespoke suit.

You're probably quite right.

The link referred to in the practising solicitor's response talks about contracts of service for employment, apprenticeship or education which are more than likely upholdable as they benefit the child.

The other main part is in relation to "necessaries" which, as I quoted before, are suggested as being "...things without which a child cannot reasonably exist, such as clothes, food, etc." Now, in the case I referred to, even clothes are not defined as necessaries if it can be shown that the child had enough clothes to get by on. In that case, can parking in a retail park's car park, when there are plenty of other places available in that city or, at the worst, she could just've come home and parked in the driveway, be deemed a necessary? Is this something that, without which, my daughter could not reasonably exist?

I think not (obviously!) and, while I appreciate that a qualified solicitor has taken the time to respond and offer an opinion, I would certainly be interested in more detail of the basis of that opinion; e.g. has that solicitor personally been involved in a case where she has tried, and failed to use that argument as a defence?

One of the other issues with the case I mentioned is that the plaintiff suffered significant financial loss due to the 'child' refusing to pay for the cloth/waistcoats/whatever (£145 I believe; although that was over 100 years ago so probably amounts to £1000s now).

jmccabe

KeithP wrote: »

OP, I believe post #15 offers you the best guidance for today.

But that's just an opinion.

Many thanks for that opinion :-)

Umkomaas

I think you are totally overthinking this. My earlier comment/advice hasn't changed.

Come back if you receive a LBC or MCOL Claim- that's where constructive help will be best on offer. I'm dubious that the forum will debate somewhat academic issues that will never come to the fore.

jmccabe

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think you are totally over-thinking this. My earlier comment/advice hasn't changed.

You may be right; I do like a good argument sometimes. I'll try the advice about writing to the landowner and see how that goes.