2 Barristers Analyse Legal Threat Against Ashley Neal
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- @ashley_neal received a letter of complaint in respect of one of his videos (linked below). This is a "Fly on the wall" look at how 2 barristers would discuss the merits of a case, the structure of a conference and the procedure. NOT to be taken as legal advice (of course) but we thought you would find it interesting nonetheless!
The allegedly offending video: • Teaching a Child to Pu...
Overview of defamation law: • Defamation and a Few F...
Also me: ua-cam.com/users/bl...
My wife's cooking: ua-cam.com/users/ea...
Address for PAID Formal Advice ONLY: clerks@ShenSmith.com
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.
For formal advice, please contact clerks@ShenSmith.com.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Ooh! Excited!
Excited to be sued?
Watched the video when you first put it on youtube, you are spot on with your statement, it was bloody bad driving. If the company was so upset did they sack the driver for bringing the company into disrupt, it was not the company at fault (unless it is an owner driver).
This is the weirdest cross over on UA-cam. Ashley Neal and BlackBelt Barrister. Didn't see that coming.
@@peterwright9546 I watched the video and the company didn't even cross my mind. Ashley's videos are interesting because i feel that i take more care when driving these days based on Ashley's advice and commentary.
@@smash461986 It's like UA-cam's mightiest heroes. Avengers Assemble!
I remember watching the video when Ashley released it, I didn't even notice the company name on the van.
My personal opinion is this, if you don't want your company/business name to be associated with bad driving, don't emblazon your company van with your business name.
OR don't drive badly. I know it's a novel concept.
I didn’t notice a company name and I couldn’t see a face.
All the company needed to do was just get rid of the guy driving and acknowledge the issue if he was employed
@@EnglishDrifts69GTxRED is probably the boss haha
I didn't notice either surely the company is bringing more attention to it's staff bad driving than Ashley did in one review which didn't mention their name anyway.
I also didn’t notice the name of the company involved, however I certainly know who it is now purely because of the letter.
Also, this whole thing is the Streisand Effect. Going after Ashley in this manner has only brought MORE views to their BAD DRIVING!
Absolute muppets.
Agreed, you can have whatever opinion you want on the legal elements (for me I personally think Ashley didn't do anything wrong (in a moral sense, I'll leave the legal side to the lawyers) and the van driver's driving was atrocious), but what you can't argue with is the absolute stupidity of the van driver to pursue the case in this particular way. The incompetence of pursuing the case in this way and resulting in the company embarassing themselves is bloody hilarious. Serves them right really.
As you said: "muppets"
You are dead right.
How dare you call them muppets. That’s an offence to Kermit
The Streisand Effect shall henceforth be known as the CityWarmth Effect.
@@dejavuking There is no such evidence in the video.
If I was the owner of this company I’d be thanking Ashley for bringing this to my attention and would proceed to reprimand the driver. That would both set an example for the rest of the drivers who work for them and also resolve the PR issues they claim to have encountered
It could be the case that the Driver is an owner of the company
@@tommy5675 Good point
What is the chance that this is a one man company?
@@wessexdruid7598 there's a lot of small plumbing companies out there so Id not be surprised if it was the owner driving the van.
@@GolfWhisky Again, you're assuming this isn't an owner driver. You're also assuming they've written false reviews. None of which can be known..
I'd like to say a huge thank you to Ashley for letting us do this live analysis and advice on his case. This was totally unedited and on the fly; and this is my genuine opinion. I didn't hold back or moderate; so Ashley was happy to risk us going public even if it had been negative advice. So that's really cool of him, I hope people find it useful.
Surprisingly many of the clips of bad driving that Ash features are from people who frankly admit that they made a mistake and want others to learn from that; many others are from people wanting advice and willing to be told in public that they were wrong.
So Ash is commendably doing for this channel what his viewers do for him.
I should have sent this to Ash originally, but I do not think the van swerved 'at the cyclist', he swerved in having passed the cyclist (see shadow behind the van) and was probably driving at least 20 mph faster than it. Still poor driving though. Unless I wanted to cause further trouble, I would not have recalled other than 'a white van'.
@@rogerukw3513 It was not just a case of pulling in after the over take but a very violent swerve in and then straighten up.
I love all this and have come from Ashley’s channel - great watch and it’s fantastic not to watch morons on the internet haha 👍🏻
People need to realise their actions are being recorded almost every minute of the day
The plumbing company concerned are very upset that a recording of one of their liveried vans swerving into a cyclist may have caused them financial harm and a loss of reputation. This may be the case. This though is the company’s problem. Unlike our legal friends here, I believe the company needs to reconsider who they allow to drive their liveried vans. If you allow hotheads and those with a vindictive nature to drive your vans then you have to deal with the consequences. This plumbing company have now scored an own goal. That was an expensive mistake.
Totally agree, responsibility and the buck stops with the driver and the company who allowed him to sit in that seat
Absolutely, they could have come out and condemned the driving and either indicated the driver was fired for misconduct or at least had been sent on some form of driving improvement scheme. This is just whining that they have been negatively impacted by their own employees dreadful driving…. Yet they don’t want to fix the root cause.
The HSE in 2009? Introduced laws, which make employers responsible for their driver's actions. The minimal requirement is to check that drivers are correctly licensed for the vehicle and not disqualified. Additionally they can set a limit on the number of penalty points.
More responsible employers also check their drivers' standard of driving
Absolutely spot on. Far too much of this going on. Any company should take full responsibility for their drivers. If a driver wants to drive like a maniac in a company vehicle, then he or she should accept the consequences and the company should deal with that person how they see fit.
@@tonywelch5534 having done some digging, it’s very likely it’s a one man band company and the owner was driving.
I get the feeling that this 'company' is a one man band and the owner is the driver. Now he's gone into damage control as there is no other driver for him to pin the blame on
A quick Companies House search (that any member of the public can easily do) suggests that you could be correct. The two listed officers share the same surname, one of them is listed as being a gas engineer, very similar to small family run plumbers company near me. If it's not a one man band it's a very small company.
You wouldn't be far wrong
Bingo
Just came to say the same
Exactly! I commented similarly.
Informative video. "In my view" this company, by planning litigation against Ashley, they have done considerably more damage to themselves, than the video.
They’ll sue themselves for defamation next
As a former traffic policeman, I can say this much, I would have swung around and stopped the driver to have a serious word with him. The manner of the driving in this video is far from what one would find acceptable on the road.
Yet the police never stop cyclists riding the wrong way down one way streets, jumping red lights and having no lights but then again drivers are easier for the police to fine.
@@123kingcarp Valid point, but a bicycle is about 60x lighter than a van and less than a 3rd of a speed. I'm sure you can clearly understand which is more dangerous.
@@bailey125 …except bicycles and scooters have killed pedestrians; and caused serious RTAs.
@@hittitecharioteer According to UK department of transport, less than 10% of all accidents were caused by bikes. It's like you're blaming a cup of water for the potential of causing a fatal drowning while a tsunami is rushing towards you.
@@lukyangho Really? As a proportion of numbers of cyclists on the roads and miles cycled compared to miles driven, there is much reason to be sceptical of the DoT data.
I had a company driver try to terrorise me driving along with my mother. He was swerving & tailgating at 80km/hr - almost ramming us no matter how fast I went. We took his plate number & the company and called them as soon as we stopped. They took it very seriously even commented in a VERY curios tone that they knew who the driver was and they would take our complaint very seriously. That’s how companies should respond to their representatives behaving badly even dangerously while using their vehicles. The company I work for has the same attitude. This company and I can’t see their name in the video should show some maturity & respond more appropriately than attacking people calling out bad behaviour
I did the same with a company and sent them the video, they apologized Megha and told me they have reprimanded the driver and put him on a written warning. Not enough in my book for what he did but at least they acted. Case closed
A similar incident appeared on a dashcam compilation channel recently whereby a man driving a company vehicle dangerously cut off then verbally abused a motorcyclist. The business involved very quickly made a statement beneath the video to explain that the man in the video had been sacked. The fact that the company in Neil's case responded with a legal threat leads me to believe the driver was the owner / very close to the owners and so took the video far too personally.
@@user-mv5zt8qd9l That's my take on it too. I emailed the company at the time and recommended they viewed it, fully expecting they'd deal with the driver (or just ignore it). The fact that they've gone down the lawyers at dawn route says exactly what you say.
We had a Royal Mail van intimidate my wife one day. He pulled onto the supermarket car park behind us, so I took photos of him and the vehicle, during which he threatened me. I then found out which depot he was from and reported him by email. The depot manager rang me and was very concerned about the drivers behaviour. She said the driver would be reprimanded and suspended from driving for a month, with notes made in his employment records. I filmed his behaviour with my phone, I had my arm in plaster at the time hence why my wife was driving.
This is why I have a forward facing dashcam and now a rear facing dashcam.
I saw the video but didn't even notice the name on the van. It was the bad driving I was looking at. The company should be going after the driver not Ashley. Does, perhaps, the driver own the company?
I agree. Can't really seriously discipline the company owner, so they've let loose the dogs of war.
What I was always told when driving company vans “ your actions reflect on the company, do not do anything to tarnish our reputation”
precisely
My dad had to park one street over once. His boss called cause he went past our home and the van wasn't in our street. He was making sure my dad wasn't driving the van for personal use. Another time, he parked it on a busy road to run into the house for something he forgot, and his boss got a call because of it's location. He gave my dad a verbal warning over it, even though he in no way obstructed traffic(Said busy road is not a clearway, it has many speed limiting things on it, and many cars/vans... even a lorry cab! I think my dad had stopped in someone else's favourite stopping point!
I drive a fully liveried HGV every working day. I never EVER EVER drive in a way that would bring shame on either myself or my employer. To do so would be biting the hand that feeds me.
@Ashley Neal does a good job. Because of those videos where he analyses from various views I learn a lot and I'm more aware how to react and deal with random situations. If he says something not good about my driving skills, style I'll accept it and I'll try to change. I'm happy to hear from a professional than some neighbour.
maybe they would go away if the police prosecuted the driver and gave him penalty points for some form of bad or dangerous driving, bearing in mind the new bike rules/laws.
@Advanced Driving must give 1.5m space to cyclists when driving past them
The 1.5m rule is now in the highway code, do enforceable.
@Advanced Driving Wow, 'Advanced Driving' needs to ask this?
@@Ah_Lee_Sun But the highway code is not a legal document.
@@MrTuxy But yet it does say that rules in the code ARE legal requirements, so actually, it’s classed as one.
Surely as a PR reaction the easiest response by the company is to say this kind of behaviour is not what they would wish of their employees, and that the driver has received some kind of disciplinary action. They could reinforce that by also encouraging reporting of the quality of their drivers or even in financially supporting good driving campaigns in the community.
And thanking Mr. Neal publicly for bringing it their attention!
There used to sometimes be phone numbers on the backs of some vans with the message, "how's my driving?"
i found this absolutely fascinating and a learning opportunity. Also love the fact that UA-camrs demonstrate their close community alliances buying getting permission and opinions from each other. love it
Question: is the driver actually the company? If not, then the company has shot themselves in the foot with bad publicity just to get money. (Allegedly!)
The Streisand Effect, they've brought more attention on themselves
Exactly!
Yes, it doesn't seem to have been mentioned - is the company a one man operation that is trying to get back at Ashley through the company rather than through the driver in an attempt to hold more weight, or appear more of a problem/threat that needs to be delt with by removing the video?
Love how you bounce off each other and highlight what the other has said and why, thank you chaps
Bouncing off? Highlights? Are we back on the bald heads again? 😀
If I could like this twice, I would. What a fascinating and useful conversation! Thank you, gentlemen, for shedding a light on an arcane area of law (to us lay people!), and how it's changed in the internet age. Much appreciated.
So glad you enjoyed it, Thank you !
I know someone who was tail-ended when he stopped at a zebra crossing due to a pedestrian being on it, by a works van. The driver had his son in the van with him, and was sacked (the companies insurance didnt cover personal use).
In the US, if you rear-end someone it is your fault. Circumstances must be extenuating otherwise.
@@annem7806 same here
@@annem7806 Im in the Uk :)
Yeah, they are not insured to have passengers that are not employees of the company. Just like most retail shops do not have insurance that include customers being allowed in their stock rooms/staff toilets. Their insurance is null and void if in an accident, and they are open to all kinds of litigation.
@@jackoh991 thought it was best to speak on what I know, earth shaking, huh? 🤣
Never understood why companies sign write their name all over vehicles to advertise their business and when someone does something bad they get upset with the complainant! All they had to do is apologise and deal with the driver. May well be a one man band and he is not happy ! If your going to drive like and idiot don’t have your details or that of your business on display
100% agree, a single small business owner with his own name on the van and company, John Smith Plumbing for example.
(I have no idea what the company is called)
The van driver should be prosecuted.
He said she said they said you said we said I said nobody said
@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24 What do you mean? Unless you’re saying that the video is unreliable (modified) in some way, there is nobody “saying” anything here. A judge and/or jury can see for themselves how the driver behaved, and make up their minds as to its compliance with acceptable driving.
@@RobertInder Well there is a potential defence said in the video by Alan. The driver could have sneezed or something and therefore it’s not necessarily an offence under the law. Especially since a sneeze is sometimes so fast you can’t stop it happening. Hard to prove, admittedly but it’s a possible reason.
@@pelicanofpunishment6 Not a defence.
You are opening yourself up for not being in proper control of your vehicle, if you rely on that as an excuse. It`s not an offence to sneeze, it is an offence however if your actions (Regardless of what they are, except such things as medical episodes, heart attacks etc) can lead to endangering other road users.
You can run it up the flagpole if you like, my guess would be no judge is gonna salute it, as they`ve heard it all before.
@@drayman1968 what about automatism? Hard to prove, but it is a legitimate defence.
Thoughts on the video: "wow, what a bad driver."
Thoughts on the lawsuit: "wow, what a bad company."
It would be good if the cyclist sees this and had camera footage of the incident to post.
@Advanced Driving Extra evidence if any of this ever does go to court.
@Advanced Driving more evidence is always better,plus it would show how close he was from the cyclists pov.
I think this company should have hired better solicitors, this is shooting the messenger after the horse has bolted. Are they going to defend this driving in their van? They should look first at investigating the actual offender for bringing them into disrepute by his criminal driving.
Some say those solicitors hired by the company are happy to take up the case and solicitors do charge a lot of money for their time and effort - so some say a win win for the Solicitors.
Even if not deliberate, the van driver was not paying attention and chose a course of action that endangered a more vulnerable road user. Whether that would be considered driving without due care, or not, that is their best 'excuse' and is damning in and of itself.
Of course, the interesting questions are "Who was the driver?" and "What is his position in the company?" If he is a senior officer, then that might explain their indignation because any action against the driver would very likely affect the company, although one would also have to ask why he was so careless with his own company's reputation.
@Advanced Driving the child should be restrained in a suitable car seat or belts so still the fault of the driver and an offense on his part.
To be fair, I didn't know what the question was about when I watched the video twice and I didn't for one millisecond notice the name on the van. I watched what happened to the cyclist and then whether there was a child or not. Only after you said about the name on the van did I go back and watch it a third time and I had trouble seeing and reading it in normal video speed.
Edit: I am amazed at the company's reaction. They must be aware that sending a letter like that is a PR disaster for them, and it could have been resolved with a simple "we take safety on the roads very seriously and will investigate the situation" kind of answer. This would have saved the (supposedly negative) impact and turn it around
Streissand Plumbing (self)-Limited.
The big underlying issue *and* solution here is this: if you're not going to obey the highway code, it's probably a bad idea to advertise your business on the vehicle you drive badly.
Most infractions won't upset people enough to justify posting footage or leaving bad reviews, so it takes some effort to drive badly enough to elicit bad reviews for your business.
I have left a bad review for a business who's fully wrapped van was filmed with the driver spitting on a cyclist. In that instance, I also left a positive review for another business of almost the same name who was getting misdirected bad reviews, warning people that the negative reviews they had received were incorrect and warning others away from making that same mistake. It's not just the cyclist or the owner of the business involved who can suffer from this sort of stuff!
In my country, some companies have stickers on the back of their vans with a request that reads, "if you witness bad or dangerous driving of this vehicle, please report date, time and location and license plate to the company."
In Britain many companies have similar stickers.
And why not to the police?
A problem with that is you get spurious and malicious complaints. The last company I worked at operated 15 vehicles, hardly a week passed without some complaint, fortunately the vehicles had all round cctv.
Until they were banned i had my own premium rate telephone number. Anyone could obtain one it wasn't difficult. I had some of these "How's my driving" stickers produced and popped them on the back of my car. I then proceeded to drive like an absolute haddock about town. Then sat back whilst my answer phone made me rich. Good Times.
Maybe I need new reading glasses, but I only saw the company name after it was brought to be an important factor.
I really enjoyed the discussion between you - lots of nuances that I would never have thought of.
Good point re offering to blur name on video as ‘gesture of goodwill’ …
Thank you both and to Ashley for informative and useful information and opinion
I've worked in data protection law for ten years, including for the ICO. In my opinion, there will be a serious uphill battle to take a data protection claim to court. I wouldn't want to do it, and even if I were their friend, I would only reluctantly provide advice.
I've been watching ASHLEY NEAL for 2 years now, He has helped my Driving, ( 43 years )
Ashley didn't mention the COMPANY Logo,
so the video was on the DRIVER,
NOT the COMPANY,
NO CASE to answer
Setting aside the defamation for one moment, the company could be opening up a whole load of problems for themselves. If there was a child in the van, was it there when the van was being driven on official business? If it was, was the van insured to carry a minor - is carrying a child when used on business covered by the insurance? What is company policy on the carriage of minors in a company vehicle? Did the child require a special seat? If it wasn't on company business, then was it insured for use for the transit of non-employed people when not on company business ? (sometimes the driver may be insured, but only for the purposes of home to place of work commuting, but not their families). Possible questions the police may ask?
This was the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the video. Why was a child in the van, and was it properly insured and secured?
I can only assume the company has given this full consideration and gone ahead with this action in the full knowledge that their driver was operating in full compliance with any applicable policies.
🤔
Van insured for business or private. You would be ok to carry others in you vehicle. Irrelevant if it's an adult or child. Now if the child was walking around a work environment that would be a different thing
I was thinking on the same lines whilst watching this.
It was the first thing that occurred to me too. I've worked for several companies, in various business sectors, which run vans and every single one had a strict "no passengers" rule. Most had "no private use" rules as well.
@@stubeedoo8259 rules are not necessarily based on laws.
When I originally watched the video, I never noticed the fact it was a company van and had branding attached.
if the company is so concerned about their image, they should be ensuring that their workers aren't going around trying to deliberately cause injury to other road users, instead of attacking those that bring it to light.
How do you do that?
@@sylvi4444 don't hire complete mongs for a start
I suspect the legal letter was sent to Ashley Neal to frighten him into removing the video. I doubt the sender will take it any further if Ashley ignores the letter.
There's f all they can do as he showed what happened.
I saw this vid on Ashley's channel, I wasn't even aware of the firms name on the van. I am now and their actions in taking legal action don't make me have a positive view of them.
The driver of the van is acting as an ostensible official of the company in regard to his conduct. I find it incredible that the company have not been profusely apologetic and commenced disciplinary action against the driver.
Hey Mr Shaw!👋👋👋 Always enjoy your input as well.
Truth is not defamation.
That's not necessarily the case. See around 37min in
I like listening to your videos when I am tidying up the home and making the bed etc you learn a lot
They are doing more damage to the name of the company than their driver did. I wouldn't have battered an Eye lid to the company but now they are black listed with me. I will also be talking to my local councillor as the run local government funded schemes.
Thanks for publishing this. It was a very interesting discussion and actually I liked this sort of content!
The company are going to create a Streisand effect through this
Haha. I was just about to say the same thing.
Well I hadn't seen the video before this!
@@0NoQuarter14 I saw the video but hadn't given a 2nd thought to the advertising business name on the van
I am here now precisely because of the Streisand effect. I had not seen Ashley's original video, nor this one, until it came round on Reddit today.
Interesting case. As one of AN's subscribers, I will be following with interest.
If I had a company with any sort of company vehicle I'd make sure the training included the fact that while you were in that vehicle you were representing the company!
We had an email from the MD when we got T-shirts with the company logo on that we were representing the company when wearing them and to be aware of the fact.
I watched this video a couple of days ago. At the time I hadn’t noticed the livery on the van and quickly forgot that it even existed.
Thanks to this though, I now know that citywarmth have bellends driving their vehicles.
I saw the video a couple of days ago and I did not consider this a slur on the company. However that they should try and make it one has focussed my attention on them...really how stupid can you get and if they suffer any loss then it is their action that will precipitate it not the video.
IMO, they think Ashley has loadsa money and are trying to make a quick buck.
Same here, saw the video way back and not once did company come to mind. Only the shocking state of the driver's driving and potential passing on of bad habits.
The driver's actions on their own would not make me think ill of the company. Their reaction and the direction they're taking, though, does.
Had they simply said that the driver had been spoken to/reprimanded, that would probably be the end of it. What they're trying to do now makes the entire situation worse for them.
I suspect this is a small company, and the driver probably _is_ the company - so rather than hold his hands up to committing a pretty abhorrent act, he's doubling down and trying to scare Ashley into removing the video.
I watch Ashley Neal's videos regularly, and I had indeed seen this video before. After watching this commentary, I went and watched it again, complete with a frame-by-frame analysis to make absolutely sure that what Ash was saying matched up with what could clearly be seen in the footage. The footage, incidentally, comes from a regular and prolific contributor of Ash's video material, who has a well-deserved reputation for situational awareness while driving. It's thus no surprise that this incident stood out to him.
The road in question is a wide one, but has only one lane per direction. These lanes are so wide that the blue van (and the even larger vehicle conveying the dashcam) doesn't even need to encroach on the centre line to pass the parked car on the left. Enough space remains on the opposite side of that line for the white van to overtake the cyclist while giving the latter a comfortable amount of space, given the speed of traffic. While the road surface is somewhat patched as evidence of past utility works, it is smooth in the relevant area and would not have caused a normal motor vehicle to lurch in any way; I wouldn't have had any trouble with it on my bicycle, either. There are no parked cars or similar hazards in the white van's path except for the cyclist and another car travelling in the same direction a few lengths ahead.
The complaint (allegedly) states that the white van swerved to avoid the blue van. Careful analysis shows that the two vans were clearly on opposite sides of the white line and, merely by continuing in the same direction, would have passed each other safely. This would have been apparent to both drivers since they are positioned on the offside of each vehicle, ideal for judging the space on that side. Nevertheless, the white van did begin a noticeable and very sharp deviation to the nearside just before the front ends of the two vans and the cyclist were roughly in-line. So even if subjectively true from the white van driver's point of view, this would imply very poor observation of the road immediately prior to that manoeuvre. As Ash noted, the presence of the cyclist on the nearside of the white van at that moment is at least an equally reasonable interpretation.
Fortunately, there was sufficient space between the van and the cyclist that, even with that swerve, the cyclist was not apparently struck or otherwise deflected from his intended path. In accordance with UK road regulations, the cyclist was indeed cycling in the road, in the normal position close to the nearside but not actually in the gutter. Given that cycling on the pavement is officially discouraged in the UK, and given the layout of the road at that location, he was cycling exactly where he would be expected to. If there had been a parked car to pass, he'd have been looking for a way to swing out and avoid it, but there wasn't, so he kept close to the lines of the junction he was passing at the time.
As for the implicit lesson being given to the child - I'm satisfied that there probably was a child in the front seat - I think it goes beyond "this is how you treat cyclists". It's part of a more general culture which claims that people who ride bicycles are "inferior" because they supposedly can't afford to travel around in a nice, big, shiny motor vehicle. The lesson for the child is "don't BE a cyclist". I bet there'll never be a bicycle under the Christmas tree in that household - or if there is, it'll strictly be some sports model for mucking around in the park or on a mountainside, specifically lacking the accessories necessary to make it a viable and safe mode of transportation.
I must tip my hat to you for the time that you obviously devoted to analysing the video in question & giving a detailed break down on your exact take on what may have happened.
The van wasn't white though.
If you look even more carefully at the video you'll see that the van in question swerved *after* it was level with the van travelling in the opposite direction *and* at precisely the moment to impart maximum fright to the cyclist being overtaken.
I have been subscribed fo Ashley Neal for over a year and I believe my driving has improved as a result, and I hope this driver will improve having seen this video.
I as a cyclist had an Ambulance pass within a foot of me with blue lights and sirens, in the interests of the NHS and ambulance situation I will not pursue this as a case of bad driving. The 1.5 metre gap is a "should" and not a "must".
The NHS is not a religious cult that you must defend. If one of their representatives endangered you then they should be held responsible to prevent it happening again.
And you hadn’t heard the ambulance from half a km away and chosen not to give it room because?
@@PippetWhippet because there's no more room between a car to my left waiting to pull out from a junction and the kerb edge about 9 inches away. If I had veered to the left any more I would either have swerved into a vehicle or the kerb edge. Nowhere else to go.
My first step would be to check the law firm is real and that they sent the letter. I was once sent a 'survey' by a customer purportedly from a expert identifying so called major issues with a job that had been independently inspected and passed with flying colours. Turned out she'd written it herself.
There's a law firm on Tyneside called Hadaway and Hadaway. A former boss once wrote a jokey letter to a colleague about a very minor car crash claiming to be from Hadaway and Sheight. That's a Geordie expression for, erm, go away, with a slight variation in spelling.
I worked in Durham for five years and thought the expression was "ganawayanshyte"
@@flipper2392 Durham and Sunderland yes, but it's variable.
Brilliant video Dan! Great collaboration with Alan. Just watch out for too many interruptions as it happened a few times and can break the flow a bit. Really informative though
I do love a tangent!
What a fascinating discussion. Thank you both.
Mega-interesting discussion; the 54 minutes flew by and now I have a mountain of work to catch up on. Thank you gentlemen.
Great rationality and legal analysis while not even needing to scratch the surface of companies who fail to sufficiently monitor the quality of their drivers.
I suspect the solicitor who sent the letter never thought it would be put in front of a barrister
Thanks guys , very interesting discussion .
unbelievable the firm would have to nerve to take someone to court after that sort of dangerous driving, absolutely awful
I'm so glad you spoke first , I couldn't make up my mind which one was you .
Undoubtedly the intent was to point out bad driving. Defaming the comapny is incidental. Having watched the video it was bad driving. The comnpany is responsible for hiring this person, and the driver responsible for defaming the company by driving badly. The company is defaming itself concocting lies to defend this behaviour.
Company is responsible for who ever they gave keys to.
@vomit A statement does have to be false to be defamatory. The company claimed the white van swerved to avoid the blue van. (I don't think that's true) but the video says the white van swerved to intimidate the cyclist. The company claims this is a false and defamatory statement, but I think you are right - the video accurately depicts what happened.
@vomit I think the defamatory statement was was why he swerved, not whether he swerved ( which is on video). Ashley strongly suggested it was a deliberate action to ‘teach the cyclist a lesson’ rather than a lapse.
Obviously this would impact the drivers reputation worse.
Its not like he swore at the cyclist when doing the swerve, which would make the intent clearer
Note I don’t necessarily agree, but I can see the case made by the driver
Its interesting to watch this interrogation of an incident.
My own questions would be;
Did the driver of the van have a child in the vehicle, if so was the driver insured to allow this, as the vehicle is obviously owned by a company.
Also, if it was the company that had made the complaint, would it not have been in the interest of the company to discipline the driver for his behaviour , as a company wouldn't like the bad publicity provided by the bad driving.
Regarding the dashcam footage, its a public place so I wouldn't have thought they would have had the power to instruct someone to remove such footage.
it was likely the owner of the company in the vehicle
Yep video and photograph what you want in public, only becomes data if you do it as a company / business of which members of public can ask for a copy. The data collector has to give warning verbally or by a sign they are recording, yes even the police unless it is an incident involving a crowd or crime
Many companies allow personal use on vans. It's a cheap taxable benefit and encourages the driver to look after the vehicle properly.
@@laceandwhisky That’s fine, but you’ve missed the issue. No-one is saying the driver shouldn’t have been recording. Just because you e recorded something doesn’t give you the right to publish it. In this situation, he did have every right to publish it, but my point is that you’ve latched onto an irrelevance and it’s not what’s being discussed here.
@@PippetWhippet as the law states members of the public can record video or photograph in a public place and publish it, no one can stop you so you have a right by law, if the subject doesn't want exposure don't do stupid things that people will use. That's the whole point. This employer has not got a clue how it works. I don't agree or not agree I am just stating the law for others
In my opinion this is the best BBB vid for a long while. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
As someone else has mentioned, is the driver the owner of the company? If so I can see him being irate about being called out. I'll bypass any judgement on his driving. However, was it a child in the van and if so - does his van's insurance cover children being in the van? Even if so, what about his (or the company's) employer's insurance, can he take non-personnel in the van out on jobs? I think I would be tempted to have kept schtum on this matter as the police upon viewing it may take a different angle.
No one really took notice of the company on the van, however now they've made threats they've brought attention to themselves.
i think the company in question could have avoided most if not all the bad publicity had they issued a statement appologising for the actions of the driver, they certaintly didnt help themselves by being silent & deleting their social media pages...
I can safely say as a casual view of Ashley Neal videos that when I watched the original video when it was uploaded I had the full reaction of ‘what a knob’ and moved on with my life. It wasn’t even until 3/4 through this video that I actually seen the company name but that was more the ‘ok, what was the company name’ out of curiosity.
So I’d say (sure many will agree?) that them raising this case has brought way more attention than the standalone original video would’ve brought
Brilliant and informative as usual thank to you and Alan
I had a similar situation where I reported a van to their company when they pulled out on me at a junction after being let out by another moterist. Would not have been so bad if the driver had not been a bit vile after pulling out on me. I rang the company and they said they would deal with it. A few weeks later, I get a phone call to say thay have now invested in a driver improvement course for their drivers. If that is true or not I have no idea but the company was quite pleasant to deal with.
Me being the driver of a sign written van , you have to remember that the van you drive is a mobile advert for the company in question.thus the way you drive, park , the state of the van can have a visual impact on your potential customers,it may sound weird , but if you see a sign written vehicle being driven in a manner which is antisocial then a potential customer may have second thoughts of employing the said company to carry out paid work for them.
Because the potential customer may think that if they drive like that, what sort of work will be carried out in my house.
Yep the company may be fantastic.
But it goes a long way to have safe , polite drivers .
It's a bit like the " Typical BMW driver" joke.
It's a sad state of affairs that Ashley is being sued for a situation that highlights the danger that road users can have on each other due to there actions.
But a thing aside from this is did the said driver have permission to have his child in the van ? Would the companies insurance cover this if something was to happen.?
A veryvgood insight to English law and if I ever have my own UA-cam channel I will watch this video again !
Thanks to both of you for creating this video of your views about Ashley's video from the perspective of your knowledge of the legal system. Great stuff.
Always enjoy your collaborations with Robert,have learnt so much about basic law in the last couple of months,just by watching your channel everyday✊
What a howler 😱 if they want to claim defamation of character or their company they will need to take every negative commenter to court too🙄
I wonder if the vans have a 'report my driving' sticker on the back?
definitely not on the front of the van!
If it has, I bet they remove it as fast as they can
With incompetent van drivers that have bus details on the van, I always email the business explaining exactly what happened and suggest they ask to view cctv. I do this as 17 years ago, i knew someone who was killed by an incompetent van man. A four year old lost his mother, her husband lost his wife.
I think I will jump on their website and email them my disgust at their driver and their actions.
I'm so glad the numberplate and logo wasn't blurred, the way this company reacted was totally wrong in my opinion.
Very informative video, thank you. Is this not a poor reflection on a law firm taking up a very weak and unsubstantiated complaint?!
The company concerned should think about employing drivers of a better standard. keep up the great videos Ashley.
The blue van should not have tried to pass the parked car without sufficient space between the parked car and the on coming traffic. When the driver {blue van} does decide to pass, the driver doesn’t indicate to advise others of his intention. The white van driver looked as if he had room to pass the cyclist and stay in lane. The blue van’s wheels were almost on the lane marking, which would mean that the blue van and more importantly the wing mirror, would have been encroaching on the other lane when the two vans passed each other. I think the blue van, by not indicating and then passing, took the white van driver by surprise. I don’t think the white van took evasive action until he had passed the cyclist. Did the blue van take into consideration the cyclist when moving over to pass the parked car? So, who is the real culprit?
In what Universe do you live in where motor vehicles indicate every time they overtake a parked vehicle?
Very informative video and a great insight helping us avoid potential pitfalls. I often advocated a greater penalty for a driver who is guilty of a motoring offence whilst carrying a minor as a passenger. Aside from the risk to their safety, I regularly experience firsthand the negative behaviours reflecting their mentor’s attitude to road safety or other road users.
It is a good example of the Barbra Streisand effect. If they’d kept their mouths shut only a few people would have taken notice of the company name. Now many times more people will see it resulting in potential customer loss, PLUS the company now has to pay for a lawyer as well.
Unless I missed it, what was not mentioned was if the driver was the company and/or the director, rather than an employee.
The law of Unintended Consequences will probably kick in soon: that the company is suing Ashley will make them even more widely known as irresponsible twats and they'll lose even more business. Also known as the Streisand effect.
If Ashley Neal organises a go fund me...
I will donate...
Ashley Neal is an amazing Driving instructor.x
Fascinating video. Can you imagine what the cost of 2 barristers for a hour would be? Some real insight into the process.
.If this is a real complaint then it's a prime example of the Streisand effect. i didn' notice the company name or logo, but i am sure going back to look now.
there is no expectation of privacy in public.
If it is a company van, should the driver even have a child with them? Most companies don’t allow drivers to use their company vehicle for private use.
it'll be a single business owner, a plumber/joiner/bricklayer for example, his insurance will cover a passenger, he could easily say the alleged child was being dropped off at school/child minder before he goes to work
Daniel and Alan I like maybe 99% of the viewers of the Channel Know Nothing about Legal Matters , The way you Both Break it down into Plain English is so interesting and informative and easy to follow . During The discussion you mentioned the Question mark ? Did Ashley Make a Statement in the Video,s Title Or Pose a Question . What would your Answers be on the Video,s Title , Thank you again Daniel and Alan Cheers Francis
Very good video, thanks for publishing this.
I don't think workvans are insured to have children as passengers
A good point - depends on the policy, of course.
Old news I know but:
Is it possible the van driver swerved to avoid the dashcammer?
The dashcam footage appears to be high up as the view looks over the blue van. The dashcam is in probably in the centre of the vehicles windscreen so it appears that the vehicle may be a large truck that is straddling the centre line.
Oncoming cars are positioned well over to the left on the opposite side maybe to avoid this larger vehicle.
The van driver only had roughy less then half a second to perhaps move over.
You can see in the paused video that it is possible the oncoming white-van driver is probably not reacting to the blue van but the next obstacle which might be the large dashcam vehicle.
You can also see the following white van positioned well over into the cycle lane to avoid whatever the dashcammer is driving as it goes round the parked vehicle.
Is this possible?
Are there details of the dashcam vehicle?
I also posted on the Ashley Neal page but as I said I know it's old news.
The most important factor here, is the dangerous style of driving shown by the driver, it wasn't just poor driving or driving without due care, in my honest opinion there was some deliberate effort to intimidate the cyclist in a dangerous way.
The fact he did this with a child in the passenger seat is just setting a poor example as a parent or guardian.
Now to do this in a liveried work van is just plain stupid, whether ge is working on the job or driving between jobs, the driver is representing the company he works for.
I'm my opinion if his driving is so dangerous, it's fair to say, it calls into question his standard of work also!
Now as a company, they shouldn't be pursuing Ashley for anykind of legal action, they should be taking disciplinary action against their driver!
As an example, my wife works for the NHS, often she will wear her uniform on the way to and back from work, although she is out of her workplace, she is still representing the NHS.
So if she behaved in some bad way let's say arguing with someone in a shop and throwing insults or getting aggressive (which she wouldn't do BTW) and someone reported her, she would atvleast be reprimanded at work and most likely lose her job, as she would be representing her employer in a negative way!
Simple solution, sack the driver and thank Ashley for highlighting this bad situation!👍
A lot of interesting points, I don't think Ash will be hearing from them again after this video, not the point I know, but still.. Upon the information presented here, I think they will back out.
AH could learn a lot in regards to apologizing. Sadly she can not admit to any mistakes.
I once lived in a small town. My club had an incident where we wanted legal advice - we thought the club's landlord had broken an agreement. Thing is, the town was so small, it only had one solicitor's office. So, we were offered free advice and spent half an hour, presenting what we thought was our case. It was only after we'd "laid all our cards on the table", so to speak, that the solicitor declared conflict - he was our landlord's solicitor!
Yes, we might've expected this to be the case but surely - as we gave our landlord's name at the beginning - they should've declared conflict before we'd given our grounds for complaint?
As far as bad reviews are concerned, take time to consider your reply - was it fair complaint or not? Then answer carefully, just once, either offering an apology and improving, even recompense, if the review was fair. If it was unfair, state the facts of the matter and leave it to the review readers to draw their own conclusion. It's important, though, not to engage in argument.
I found the conversation between two respected legal professionals very interesting, and the hour video flew past when I was watching it (I did a lot of rewinding). It really shows what knowledge and information you are paying somebody a 'good chunk of money' for their legal advice and assistance.