Minster Baywatch / ANPR claim form received

w12ee3e

Umkomaas said:

Showing us the dates on the NtK is essential to confirm whether there is any possibility of keeper liability under PoFA. Otherwise, the NtK is rather neither here nor there.

The date of 'contravention' is 15/7/21 and the date of issue is 22/7/21. I presume keeper liability applies though irrespective of dates.

@Redx Having looked through the SAR, there isn't anything suggesting that they know who was liable. The ANPR photo 'may' unfortunately be of sufficiently high enough detail to visually identify whoever the driver was, however. Though I don't think that's relevant either way because I don't think any party is legally required to disclose who the driver or entity was. Hint - the driver was not the keeper.

Redx

w12ee3e said:

Umkomaas said:

Showing us the dates on the NtK is essential to confirm whether there is any possibility of keeper liability under PoFA. Otherwise, the NtK is rather neither here nor there.

The date of 'contravention' is 15/7/21 and the date of issue is 22/7/21. I presume keeper liability applies though irrespective of dates.

@Redx Having looked through the SAR, there isn't anything suggesting that they know who was liable. The ANPR photo 'may' unfortunately be of sufficiently high enough detail to visually identify whoever the driver was, however. Though I don't think that's relevant either way because I don't think any party is legally required to disclose who the driver or entity was. Hint - the driver was not the keeper.

If the keeper was not the driver , and if they are chasing the keeper for the unpaid invoice , then the only way possible is they complied with POFA , or they fail ! Hence your presumption should be fully checked , not presumed !

So a non driving keeper defendant would put them to strict proof of POFA compliance , signage , landowner authority , etc

But if the defendant was also the driver , POFA would not feature at all , neither would keeper liability either

There is no legal requirement to name the driver

w12ee3e

I haven't received my invitation to complete the DQ yet but I've been tinkering away with my WS in the meantime and it looks good so far. I have made it very clear that the signage is improper (some of the signs make no mention of MB, others mention Bransby and Wilson as the manager etc) lots of pictures to back this up in my exhibits section.

On the point above alone there's clear ambiguity regarding which party a supposed contract would be formed with (with all else being perfect which it's not)

Do you think on that basis alone my chance of success looks encouraging?

Other cases invoked : Britannia Vs Crosby and Excel vs Wilkinson. as per @Coupon-mad I still need to include and read Fairlie v Fenton

Coupon-mad

Yes it's a valid point but depends on the Judge.

Britannia Vs Crosby

Nope, we no longer use it.  See example WS by @jrhys and @Nosy.

w12ee3e

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it's a valid point but depends on the Judge.

Britannia Vs Crosby

Nope, we no longer use it.  See example WS by @jrhys and @Nosy.

The jyhys template was extremely useful, I've done a lot of tidying up on my one. I couldn't find much on Nosy and disturbingly it looks like he lost! I think I've got what I need though.

So far I've now only got Excel vs Wilkinson, like jrhys. Would Fairlie Vs Fenton have a big impact do you think?

I also have the Beavis case sign in my WS plus Para 98, 193, and 198 (delete or keep?)

Thanks

w12ee3e

Also just to add to this, is it still worth appealing to Gloucestershire Wildlife trust (they might be interested in the unscrupulous ways of this particular scammer) though I doubt they'll care much. I'm tempted to mention how weak their appointed scammers case is with the signage on site naming multiple different scam operators.

Redx

The Recorder Cohen judgment is also useful

Bear in mind the newer VCS or Excel appeal case this year that Bargepole mentioned , in case it's brought up to counter Wilkinson

Crosby was on TV 2 weeks ago , as were coupon mad and Bargepole ! 🤔🤔😁😁

w12ee3e

Redx said:

The Recorder Cohen judgment is also useful

Bear in mind the newer VCS or Excel appeal case this year that Bargepole mentioned , in case it's brought up to counter Wilkinson

Crosby was on TV 2 weeks ago , as were coupon mad and Bargepole ! 🤔🤔😁😁

I wonder who was who! Was Bargepole the older gent salesman turned solicitor. Coupon mad being the lady they interviewed earlier on?

Redx

w12ee3e said:

Redx said:

The Recorder Cohen judgment is also useful

Bear in mind the newer VCS or Excel appeal case this year that Bargepole mentioned , in case it's brought up to counter Wilkinson

Crosby was on TV 2 weeks ago , as were coupon mad and Bargepole ! 🤔🤔😁😁

I wonder who was who! Was Bargepole the older gent salesman turned solicitor. Coupon mad being the lady they interviewed earlier on?

Correct , CM was on the beach , BP at his kitchen table , Crosby in his workshop

w12ee3e

Just found this which I'm going to incorporate into my WS

"8.      Recorder Cohen judgment.  The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties.  Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied. (transcript of which is exhibit SC08)."

Do we have a section where all the approved transcripts can be found, I'll need to add that too I'd imagine?