Tweet
sorry another question. I believe I have to start a new thread for each question?
I've just been reading a few court cases where the defendant won against the Parking firms.
"She says in her witness statement that she was not the driver, but even if I ignore everything that Miss X has produced and look solely at the evidence that is produced by the claimant, the claimant comes nowhere close to satisfying me on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was the driver at the time. They may have had a claim had they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, but they have not and they cannot pursue Miss X on the basis of a breach of contract in the absence of any evidence at all that she was actually the driver at the time of the incurrence of the parking charge notice. 8. As a result of that ruling it seems to me that everything else falls away because the whole claim is based on the breach of contract. So I do not need to deal with any of the other issues that have been raised by the defence. So the judgment will simply be claim dismissed.
The verdict was because the Keeper cannot be responsible if Co hadn't adhered to the Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to the requirements prescribed by section 9 (2) (e)of the Act.
In other words the Keeper cannot be held responsible for payment of charge.
If that is the case surely the Co in question cannot issue proceedings against the Keeper. Could the Keeper not apply for a "Strike Out" on the grounds that they have no success of winning
It’s a baseline rule in law. You can’t advance a case which isn’t recognised by law.
Courts have a series of grounds upon which to strike out statements of case. They include: no reasonable grounds to bring the claim
Cases suitable for strike out include:
The claimant has no reasonable chance of success
I may be wrong here but seems to make sense to me. Maybe someone more versed in the law could point out any errors I have made in presuming this.
I've just been reading a few court cases where the defendant won against the Parking firms.
"She says in her witness statement that she was not the driver, but even if I ignore everything that Miss X has produced and look solely at the evidence that is produced by the claimant, the claimant comes nowhere close to satisfying me on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was the driver at the time. They may have had a claim had they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, but they have not and they cannot pursue Miss X on the basis of a breach of contract in the absence of any evidence at all that she was actually the driver at the time of the incurrence of the parking charge notice. 8. As a result of that ruling it seems to me that everything else falls away because the whole claim is based on the breach of contract. So I do not need to deal with any of the other issues that have been raised by the defence. So the judgment will simply be claim dismissed.
The verdict was because the Keeper cannot be responsible if Co hadn't adhered to the Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to the requirements prescribed by section 9 (2) (e)of the Act.
In other words the Keeper cannot be held responsible for payment of charge.
If that is the case surely the Co in question cannot issue proceedings against the Keeper. Could the Keeper not apply for a "Strike Out" on the grounds that they have no success of winning
It’s a baseline rule in law. You can’t advance a case which isn’t recognised by law.
Courts have a series of grounds upon which to strike out statements of case. They include: no reasonable grounds to bring the claim
Cases suitable for strike out include:
- the claimant or defendant raises an unwinnable case
The claimant has no reasonable chance of success
I may be wrong here but seems to make sense to me. Maybe someone more versed in the law could point out any errors I have made in presuming this.
Comment