I was helping a friend a few months back driving. He has now received a NIP off some general ticket office manager on behalf of the behalf of the chief constable (no names) The main company who my friend was subcontrating for are asking who was driving? He says he thinks it was me but told the main company he’s not sure he will try and find out and get back to them. I haven’t a clue as it was back in June. Anyone any ideas how to proceed with this?

The old chestnut "i told you so" sent to me by @Geoff Norton myself and @Roy Coughlan have spoken about this, Roy has had a lot of grief for trying to speak out about this very topic

Something else, i have to say, would you do it? i must admit i was nervous, but hey, why not. An AI car, driving along many busy roads. No taxi drivers today, then no bus drivers, delivery drivers, Pilots?? Back in the 70s and 80s we had the Royal Navy ships on auto pilot, so in reality AI has been around for over 40 years

I’m the friend Peter mentioned on Thursday that got it set aside at the trail. Peter got some of the details correct but not all, I’ll put all the details up tomorrow and answers any questions anybody may have. He is right on I went in without a bundle(printer was out of ink) I did have my phone however knew I wouldn’t need it.

In the attached witness statement, (being used in a live case today) you'll notice the term “assignment instrument” used instead of “Deed of Assignment.” This is deliberate — and powerful. Too often, arguments spiral into whether a deed is technically required under s.136 LOPA 1925. But Frischmann [2023] EWHC 2698 (Ch) settled the real issue: if the claimant is asserting legal title, they must prove it with a valid instrument of assignment — signed by the assignor, absolute, and admissible in court. By using the term “instrument,” we close every escape route: ✅ If it was a deed — then where is the executed, unredacted copy? ✅ If it’s an absolute assignment in writing — then it still needs to comply with s.136. ✅ If it’s neither — the claim collapses for lack of title. This language shifts the burden back where it belongs — on the DCA — and prevents us getting bogged down in irrelevant side debates. Let’s keep our focus: litigation, not pedantry.Frischmann is the precedent. The burden is on the claimant. We demand evidence.