CST Law case - Judgement made

Coupon-mad

lurpdog101 said:

KeithP said:

lurpdog101 said:

He said as of 2015 it is law to name the driver when asked, if it wasn't yourself.

Wow!! I wonder which law he was thinking of?

he did say something, but I didn't write it down. I was in the witness box at the time.

Their solicitor was totally unprepared and even admitted their issues. TBH he was fuming with them too, as not been given much to go on. I don't think they expected me to go.

He (solicitor) said morally he agrees with everything I said. The person who sent the email with the incorrect client name, (judge said was bad but not pertinent or had weight to the case) no longer works for Anchor/Ocean and their solicitor was angry as said he only found that out when he called to talk to her as she was his contact for the case!!

He said as of 2015 it is law to name the driver when asked, if it wasn't yourself

There is NO SUCH LAW and if he said that then he erred in law.

He also allowed them more in 'standard costs' than the 3 PCNs and yet he disallowed the rep's attendance fee AND disallowed the fake added DRP 'fees', so surely he didn't let them have '£374 for the standard charges'?

What standard charges?!  They filed a 4 figure claim for lots of PCNs with no merit and he only allowed 3 of the PCNs so on what possible planet does he think the 'standard fees' are proportionate to award at MORE THAN THE PCNs?!

You might just want to ask Contestor Legal if they think this is worth appealing.  Before you rush to pay.

Google them and give your outcome and summary.  You could link them to this thread as they know about us.  And all the info of your case is here.

lurpdog101

Coupon-mad said:

lurpdog101 said:

KeithP said:

lurpdog101 said:

He said as of 2015 it is law to name the driver when asked, if it wasn't yourself.

Wow!! I wonder which law he was thinking of?

he did say something, but I didn't write it down. I was in the witness box at the time.

Their solicitor was totally unprepared and even admitted their issues. TBH he was fuming with them too, as not been given much to go on. I don't think they expected me to go.

He (solicitor) said morally he agrees with everything I said. The person who sent the email with the incorrect client name, (judge said was bad but not pertinent or had weight to the case) no longer works for Anchor/Ocean and their solicitor was angry as said he only found that out when he called to talk to her as she was his contact for the case!!

He said as of 2015 it is law to name the driver when asked, if it wasn't yourself

There is NO SUCH LAW and if he said that then he erred in law.

He also allowed them more in 'standard costs' than the 3 PCNs and yet he disallowed the rep's attendance fee AND disallowed the fake added DRP 'fees', so surely he didn't let them have '£374 for the standard charges'?

What standard charges?!  They filed a 4 figure claim for lots of PCNs with no merit and he only allowed 3 of the PCNs so on what possible planet does he think the 'standard fees' are proportionate to award at MORE THAN THE PCNs?!

You might just want to ask Contestor Legal if they think this is worth appealing.  Before you rush to pay.

Google them and give your outcome and summary.  You could link them to this thread as they know about us.  And all the info of your case is here.

Thanks - I was surprised at the costs. They are broken down as :

£115 - court application fee (as on the court summons)
£80 - legal representation fee (as on the court summons)
£181 - Court hearing fee - not mentioned anywhere and only found out there. 

He had also said that their CoP was woefully scant.

With Contestor Legal being a law firm, would I not just end up paying them a similar amount in fees to contest it? I spoke to someone on the phone and have emailed him, as he said it is not normal to have to pay higher fees than the actual amount awarded to the claimant.

Coupon-mad

He had also said that their CoP was woefully scant.

That's another error then: a second reason to appeal and Jackson Yamba is an expert on that issue!  The Judge should have struck out the claim.

Did your defence include CEL v Chan?

With Contestor Legal being a law firm, would I not just end up paying them a similar amount in fees to contest it?

Up front yes, but in the end if he wins the appeal like he did in CPMS v Akande then the Claimant pays all the fees.  And you don't pay any of the claim.  If it was me I'd appeal.

OldWilliam

LDast said:

The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008

These regulations require companies to clearly display their registered name at all locations where business is carried out and to include it on all forms of communication which would include any signs that form a contract. This ensures transparency and enables anyone dealing with the company to know its true legal identity.

Just a quick note to point out that these Regulations were revoked and replaced by The Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015.

The provisions of the latter extend to other matters but essentially the requirements in respect of legal entities such as limited companies and limited liability partnerships are the same.  Unfortunately, budget cuts have meant that Trading Standards departments and the Insolvency Service - both of which can prosecute for the Regulation 28 offence of failing to comply with Part 6 - don't actually enforce these Regulations (an FoI request has revealed that no-one has ever been prosecuted for the offence since the Regulations were made ten years ago!) but the requirements can come in very handy as has been pointed out by LDast.

It's also very useful to check, before making payment, that a trader actually exists before making an online purchase... if any of the required four legally-required identification facts are missing, then "buyer beware"!  The four facts that are legally required on Web sites and on all "business communications" (including e-mails) are:

• the name of the company;
• the registered office address;
• the registered number of the company on Companies House records; and
• the part of the UK in which the company is registered, i.e. one of England & Wales (being more specific is OK), Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

Compliance isn't good... even the BT PLC subsidiary Openreach Limited didn't comply for over a year after it was incorporated in March 2017 because the registered office address on its Web site wasn't changed from that of its parent company.  And, astonishingly, there are companies registered with the Financial Conduct Authority that don't comply with Part 6: even though they're committing the Regulation 28 criminal offence, the official position of the FCA is that such criminal conduct is not a matter for the FCA to enforce!

Interestingly, and unusually, the criminal offence is committed both by the legal entity and personally by every officer of the company in default, i.e. company secretary if there is one, and each of the directors.