BW Legal try Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films yet again. Yawn. Claim dismissed

This thread on MSE gives the full story

Excel along with BW Legal were chasing a keeper for a PCN from early 2012 (pre PoFA).
As the event was 5 years ago the keeper had no idea who was driving and historically many people had driven the car.

The witness statement was the usual BW Legal poorly thrown together rubbish. Although the claim was for £100, the signage filed as evidence showed the charge to be £60.

The Hearing

Excel were represented by a barrister.

The defendant's husband acted as lay representative.

Judge Wright was in the chair.

The judge confirmed that neither Mr and Mrs Keeper were driving and asked the barrister what she was relying on given she didn't know the identity of the driver. She brought up Elliott v Loake & CPS v AJH Films. Judge Wright's face showed what she thought of that, and the claim was quickly dismissed.

Judge Wright awarded costs, but only half of what had been claimed in the costs schedule.

Prankster Notes

The Judge questioned the defendant, which took both the defendant and lay representative by surprise. This is normal in court - the defendant is their own witness after all, and will therefore be expected to answer questions on their witness statement.

If you are turning up with a lay representative, they will argue the legal aspects of the claim, but you should be prepared to answer any questions on your witness statement - the lay representative will not be allowed to answer for you.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster