Tuesday, 4 July 2017

VCS lose in court. Keeper not liable. Elliott v Loake not relevant

Vehicle Control Services v "MadHatter"  04/07/2017

The full story is on MSE.

In 2014 a person parked apparently outside bay markings at a train station.

The keeper did not consider they were liable, so ignore letters from VCS and Debt Recovery Plus. BW Legal then got involved. MadHatter denied she was liable. BW Legal issued a claim.

The Hearing

MadHatter argued that keeper liability did not apply because bylaws were in play and that the notice to keeper was not compliant.

The judge ruled this was private land and so bylaws were irrelevant, but agreed the notice to keeper was not compliant. As there was no evidence who the driver was, the claim was dismissed. BW Legal tried to argue Elliott v Loake meant the keeper was liable, but the judge was not interested.

MadHatter was awarded £21 in costs.

Prankster Note

BW Legal know full well that they had little hope of winning. However they were willing to play judge bingo in the hope of finding a judge not well-versed in parking law or the many decisions of their colleagues. These must now surely be few and far between.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Byelaws irrelevant?
    Private land?

  3. Another DJ doughnut who does not understand the basics?