Thursday, 8 June 2017

Motorist wins appeal - CPS vs AJH Films does not transfer liability from driver to keeper

Excel Parking Services v Smith (appeal) Stockport, 08/06/2017 C0DP9C4E and C1DP0C8E. Appeal M17X062 

The full story is on pepipoo

Original Hearing (2 claims)

Mr Smith was the keeper, but not the driver on the day.

DDJ Cowell found that CPS vs AJH Films allowed the transfer of liability from Driver to Registered Keeper as the driver was the keeper's agent. However, following the judgment Mr Smith expressed surprise as he had previously had an identical claim dismissed where CPS v AJH Films was found not to apply.

DDJ Cowell acknowledged that had this been known to her before then the Judgment may well have been different. She gave permission to appeal both claims.


On appeal it was found that CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. This was not such a situation.

The appeal was upheld.

Prankster Notes

Any properly qualified legal person would know that a person is not generally liable in law for the actions of somebody they have allowed somebody else to use. If they were, then there would have been no need for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. The hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars.

Excel and BW Legal tried to convince the court that this was not the case. Although they succeeded at first, their scheme came unstuck when the motorist appealed. Their greed cost Excel two lots of advocate fees and resulted in a persuasive appeal decision which can now be used against them.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. << Their greed cost Excel two lots of advocate fees and resulted in a persuasive appeal decision which can now be used against them. >>

    I really like that.

    Hopefully we will similarly get an E v L case on appeal which will block off the routes for the presumption that the keeper was the driver.

  2. It cost them 3 lots of advocacy fees, fully qualified barristers don't come cheap, it also cost them all court fees and also the defendants costs, so it's cost them dearly.

  3. Shows how badly qualified so many judges are that the error was made in the first place really.

  4. Well PPC's are certainly stretching their arguments when they try to argue that there the driver was an agent. It is absurd to think that an ANPR system or parking warden who slaps a ticket on the car, can be taken to believe that the person driving the car was acting as an agent when it can't be established who the driver is! There would need to be some form of representation that the driver was acting as an agent which the PPC would need to reasonably rely on.. and the fact that the car is parked in the car park would be far too remote.