BW Legal, Gladstones and other dodgy solicitors are fond of quoting Elliott v Loake as authority that the keeper of a car must be the driver.
Here is a pithy exchange that occurred in Skipton yesterday.
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"
Of course in 'real life' it is common for the driver of a car not to be the keeper. The Prankster has let many people drive his cars and in turn has driven plenty of other people's cars. Only in the warped minds of people like failed solicitor William Hurley would it be considered that the keeper was bound to be the driver.
Parliament considered this when it banned clamping, and for the protection of landowners brought in the Protection of freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4. Parliament enacted this specifically because there can be no assumption the keeper is the driver. If parking companies are not capable of a simple cut and paste job from the legislation then that is their failure and they cannot now go crying to the courts looking for backdoor keeper liability.
If someones lend you their pen and you sign a contract with it, are they liable for that contract? Of course not.
The Parking Prankster