Printfriendly

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

Skipton judge rubbishes Elliot v Loake

BW Legal, Gladstones Solicitors 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"

Prankster Note

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.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster










4 comments:

  1. I have a case coming up in Derby for a work colleague with BW Illegal(as I call them).This is another nail in the coffin for their pathetic approach in trying, but failing every time, to use Elliot v Loake.Looking forward to this case.I have done 53 panalty charge notices and none have ever come back.I have 3 more waiting for a reply, and this Derby one coming up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would suggest that where a claim is made using Ellitt v Loake a counterclaim should be made for a breach of the DPA if the RK's detrails were obtained from the DVLA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no way that obtaining the details initially is a breach, using them once it's pointed out the keeper wasn't driving would be.

      Delete
  3. "failed solicitor William Hurley"
    ouchy ooh, ahh.

    ReplyDelete