So a year ago I received a parking fine for parking in a private carpark. It wasn't me driving so in scotland im not liable, it was my girlfriend. I am the legal owner of the car but was at work at the time and can prove it. I wrote to them telling then I wasn't driving, i could prove I wasn't (I was working at the time), and I was under no obligation under Scottish law to disclose the driver. I'm not going to give out her name to some cowboy company. I never communicated with them again after that.
Anyway, today I applied for credit and was refused. On investigation a degree was made against me last month in my absence. I never received a court summons, they clearly didnt send me one, so obviously couldnt present facts to the sheriff in my defense
Basically the sneaky xxxxs don't have a leg to stand on legally but have manged to ruin my credit history and are claiming I also owe them 140 quid court costs!!
What are my options? The only spanner in the works is I don't have the email I sent them telling them i wasnt driving as I've cleared out my sent items
I should say I have evidence they received my appeal (and rejected it on no legal basis) but it does state that I informed them I wasn't the driver
I ceased correspondence with them after that
Legal advice from either your insurer, or your recovery (I used RAC legal cover once and it was superb, didnt even know it existed and was available to me)
https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/legal-advice
The AA, or your insurers, or even your house insurers, often have similar services.
Other than that - the best advice is not to take advice you've read off the internet (such as ignoring parking fines...) !
Did your girlfriend commit the offence they issued the parking charge for?
If so, a quick google suggests the loophole I think you are trying to rely on - that you weren't the driver and that you aren't obliged by law to disclose who was - is not infallible. From https://www.advicescotland.com/parking-charge-notice-private-firms/
If you are the Registered Keeper of a car but were not driving it at the time the fine was charged, you can argue that you are not liable for the fine.
To do this, you would need to notify the Company, once you receive the notice.
It is likely you will be expected to give the name and contact details of the person that was driving the vehicle. If you don’t, then at present although there is no concept of Registered Keeper’s liability in Scotland, a Court may presume, in the absence of you identifying the driver, that you were the driver.
The law in Scotland is expected to change with the introduction of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which will introduce the concept of Registered Keepers Liabilty.
This will mean where the identity of the driver is not known, the Registered Keeper can be held liable.
The bit about they haven't sent you court documents - another bit of googling indicates that you should be able to appeal that and have it set aside, but if they have paperwork at that end I believe it is taken as posted = delivered - otherwise the bin it and pretend you never had it defence would be all that was ever needed.
I'd expect to do so you'll have to either lawyer up to fight the above, or pay the PCN and costs but apply to have the non-payment credit blackmark removed.
Once again my opinion that those that suggest you just ignore them and eventually they go away are wired to the moon is justified.
Firstly I didn't ignore it. I was clear I wasn't driving. Appreciate the law may change but at the time I was under zero obligation to tell them who was driving.
I clearly stated I wasn't driving, that I could prove i wasnt driving, and they fully accepted that the keeper liability didnt apply in scotland. They clearly haven't mentioned any of that to the sherif, and I suspect never sent the court appointment letter as they were aware i coukd provide evidence it wasn't me. I'd have happily turned up and had my day in court if I'd known about it.
This is the issue with these xxxxs. Legally they know they don't have a leg to stand on, but they've managed to avoid any legal requirements by just not having me there.
Could I have paid up to make it disappear. Yes, but why shoukd I when legally I don't need to? They aren't going to get money out of me by trying to bully me into paying
Apparently I can apply for a recall of decree which I'll be doing immediately
OK, I'm out if this is going to be one of those 'give me some advice; NO NOT THAT ADVICE!' threads
Just so we are clear, what exactly was your advice?
Paying for a lawyer? Well with respect you clearly don't know how these things work as that's not required in scotland.
Or pay up and apply for the black mark on my credit history to be removed? Again that's not an option either. If I pay up it becomes satisfied but not removed from my credit history
Again, with the greatest respect, I posted on here looking for advice from people who know about proper procedure for challenging this (apparently the recall of decree is how to do this).
What i find odd is that I've received neither the summons nor the letter stating the outcome. If I'd received the latter I woukd at least have had the opportunity to pay in 30 days and avoid the credit rating issue
Perhaps not taking advice from the internet couldapply to theotherjonv's acvice as well.
Regardless of the parking getting a court decree without having a chance to defend it is unacceptable.
If my girlfriend didn't pay a fine incurred while driving my car, she wouldn't be my girlfriend any longer.
MrsMC got caught in a bus lane in my car a couple of years back, I don't think there was even a conversation about what needed to happen.
What i find odd is that I've received neither the summons nor the letter stating the outcome.
Can you look up the case details / outcome online?
Tried the CAB?
What i find odd is that I've received neither the summons nor the letter stating the outcome
but.....
So a year ago I received a parking fine for parking in a private carpark
Controversial thinking here, but perhaps the problem would not have escalated if either you or your girlfriend paid the fine, rather than trying to weasel out of it.
the keeper liability didnt apply in scotland. They clearly haven't mentioned any of that to the sherif
I'd like to think a sherrif would know that
I'd like to think a sherrif would know that
Bit of a selective quote there. I meant they probably didn't mention to the sherif that I had already told them I wasn't driving, and could back that up with clear evidence (I was at work at the time)
Controversial thinking here, but perhaps the problem would not have escalated if either you or your girlfriend paid the fine, rather than trying to weasel out of it.
It's not weaseling out of anything. In scotland I am not liable for the parking charge. No ifs and buts about it. If i was i would have paid like I have done several times before when I have been driving
I'm 100% confident if I had been given the chance to stand up in court and prove i wasnt driving (technically the burden of proof is on them) then I wouldn't have to pay. That's not weaseling out, that's the law.
If my girlfriend didn't pay a fine incurred while driving my car, she wouldn't be my girlfriend any longer.
MrsMC got caught in a bus lane in my car a couple of years back, I don't think there was even a conversation about what needed to happen.
This isn't particularly relevant. Being caught in a bus lane it's the owners responsibility. As is if you get fined in a council car park. In scotland, in a private car park however, the driver is responsible, the law is the law, and legally i owe them nothing. They needed to send the charge to my girlfriend, not me. If they had done she'd have paid it.
This isn't about whether I was responsible for paying, it's what to do now given I've been charged for something I absolutely am not legally responsible for. That's not up for debate
Can you look up the case details / outcome online?
I think it's the case in scotland there will be no sherrifs comments, specifically because it was completely unopposed (given I wasn't aware of proceedings)
The issue is nothing to do with choosing to pay the fine or not; it's that the OP was taken to court without being notified in any way by the court system.
I be concerned about burly chaps in bomber jacket knocking on your door soon.
The issue is nothing to do with choosing to pay the fine or not; it's that the OP was taken to court without being notified in any way by the court system.
Yes..someone finally gets it.
If I'd been present I can guarantee I wouldn't be found liable. The sheriff may have asked me to disclose whe was driving (although I doubt it as I have no legal obligation to do so), and if so I'd have told him.
I'm not however going to hand out the name of my partner to some shady parking firm, nor am I going to provide then with the evidence (work related) that I was clearly not driving at the time
I be concerned about burly chaps in bomber jacket knocking on your door soon.
Well I still don't know how much I actually owe yet as noone has sent me a letter confirming the outcome. All I know is the parking charge is 160 quid.
I'm submitting an application to the court to have it overturned and if so I'll be able to then present the facts to the sheriff. I'm 100% confident if I get my day in court I will win.
......
If I'd been present I can guarantee I wouldn't be found liable. The sheriff may have asked me to disclose whe was driving (although I doubt it as I have no legal obligation to do so), and if so I'd have told him.
In this case the reg keeper did have to disclose who was driving. The Sheriff also suggests parking companies could pursue insurers for other named drivers before taking a reg keeper to court.
"he appellant’s insurers at the time were identified and the respondent does not seem to have pursued the issue with
them, as they might have done by way of a further motion for specification"
The court will have issued papers, whether you got them or not.......
Changed address? If you got the original PCN through the post they had your address. Between your initial appeal and the CCJ being issued you would have been sent numerous letters from debt collectors, letter of claim, court documents etc. It's not credible none of these were sent.
So you need to work out why you didn't receive letters that were undoubtedly sent, you will need to explain this if you apply for a set aside order.
For now stop fixating on whether the original invoice was enforceable or not (it probably wasn't), the fact you didn't defend the court claim now makes it irrelevant.
The problem is many people ignore these court claims so it's not unusual for judgments in default to be issued.
Most private parking companies also do a credit check to verify addresses before they start proceedings. Which parking company is it?
If you want proper advice on applying for a set aside head over to the FTLA forum which has replaced Pepipoo.
The parking company and the courts will have access to the DVLA data, so its unlikely that they sent it to the wrong address.
Unless your registered keeper address is incorrect and then you may have bigger problems to deal with.
Basically, if I get a 'notification' I'll let them know who caused it - i.e. my son. I let them deal with it. Had on one where my son parked his car, paid 24h, but went home, picked up the 'shared' car, and went back and forgot to pay. Dobbed him in, but he dealt with it, and they let him off as he paid for 24h. Cars were registered as same address.
Scottish law or not, you need to dob in the driver if you are a registered keeper. Any issues like that, and I've had a fair few with son, driving a 'shared' car has been dumped on them - I'm 56 with a clean record and driving an expensive van 'thingy' that costs me less than £400 pa on insurance, so I am defending my driving record, oh and perfect credit record.
Alternative to FTLA is the parking forum on MSE - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/parking-tickets-fines-parking/
So you need to work out why you didn't receive letters that were undoubtedly sent, you will need to explain this if you apply for a set aside order.
I genuinely can't...seriously I haven't received anything. If I hadrwcievwr the summons I'd have had no issue arguing my point to the sheriff
What's more i work in a regulated industry. I'm fully aware of the consequences of a ccj (or whatever its called in scotland). There is no way I'd have ignored a letter from the court stating I owed cash, as I'd have 30 days to pay before it affected my credit rating.
My car is absolutely registered to this address
Either the court has the wrong address, or I've just been unlucky. Unless my other half has been throwing out my mail. Unlikely
Scottish law or not, you need to dob in the driver if you are a registered keeper
No i dont. The issue is not receiving the letters.i was fully entitled to respond as I did. The law in scotland is very explicit that i dont have to disclose who was driving
obviously if I get in front of a sherif I'll tell him who was driving if he asks. If he tells me I need to give the detaiks to the company fair enough I will, they can sent the notification to her and she can pay it.
Well your argument is with not receiving , or not reading the letters. Have you told the appropriate authority you never received these?
So is this a fair summary?
PPC sent you a Parking Charge Notice sometime back in the past for your car that someone else was driving at the time.
You responded by email (you said 'wrote to them' but also that you didn't keep the email that you sent back so I'm assuming email was the method from here) and they responded (how? - email also?) You say you have evidence they accepted that you weren't the driver but rejected the appeal anyway - do you still have that?
You then seem to say that there was further correspondence, but you stopped replying to them. How did they attempt to contact you afterwards and have you kept them or deleted / binned?
Next you find is that you have a CCJ or equiv when you have credit refused for non-payment of a PCN.
**
Some other points AIUI - check them by google and make your own assessment.
Court does not necessarily serve papers, in some types of case the claimant can do that directly.
There's lots of ways to serve papers, that don't necessarily require proof of receipt - including eg: proof of postage, a date stamped email, etc.
Lots of court stuff is now done online so you might not have had a bundle of papers through your door, maybe just a link to see the papers in your case where you can file your response, etc? Everything in my recent court case (albeit England and not small claims) was by the court people sending me an email with a link to a secure dropbox thing. Are you sure in the correspondence you didn't respond to there isn't such a thing that you have overlooked or dismissed?
**
Now my opinion, worth what you paid for it.
I'd be surprised that a court would find against you, in your absence, without evidence that papers were served by an appropriate means. I'm not even sure a claim would proceed without those bits being filled in.
From there, it's conjecture but not impossible to imagine that the Sheriff has interpreted law (as Advice Scotland say "a Court may presume, in the absence of you identifying the driver, that you were the driver") in that your refusal to say who the driver was is taken as admission it was you. Maybe the PPC didn't disclose the bit where you said it wasn't....or maybe they did (and maybe this is harsh) your previous refusal to engage about who was the driver so they can be served any proper charges, and then further 'refusal' to present your side in court might be taken as the kind of person that is relying on a loophole to stall the process and wriggle out and the Sheriff's decided "well **** 'em then". As IRC's link says, the 'I don't have to tell you' defence isn't as solid as it sounds:
During the period of adjustment the appellant had been called upon to state who was
claimed to have been the driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates. The call was
unanswered. This had a bearing on the issue of the appellant’s conduct of the proof before
answer
and
There could have been no doubt over the information which the respondent had been seeking and the appellant’s response had been one of blatant obfuscation
So you might be able to argue against that as bad application of law but again from my experience of courts recently, the judiciary don't take kindly to people telling them they don't know what they're doing.
Lastly - and I'll say it and I know it's not universally popular - I don't like people who loophole out of these PPCs when they have been legitimately levied for non-payment or overstaying. If people didn't do it, then we wouldn't need PPCs. Your initial determination of them as 'absolute scum' and your use of a loophole to avoid puts my back up, so while I am sympathetic to the issues caused by a CCJ being issued 'without your knowledge' I'm not that sympathetic to the fact that you could have told them at point of getting the PCN, taken your legitimate medicine, and moved on. As the court in IRC's case says:
The appellant’s earlier failure to respond to any of the notices posted to her was in practical
terms behaviour which was obviously likely to lead to further action and she was repeatedly
warned that further costs might be incurred if she simply buried her head in the sand. The
appellant’s position on appeal was that the notices were nothing to do with her and
therefore there could be no need to respond was unrealistic in practical terms and gave rise
to the litigation in which the respondents were entitled to seek to vindicate their position
which as I see it is absolutely fair and proper no matter what the loophole says.
The parking company and the courts will have access to the DVLA data, so its unlikely that they sent it to the wrong address.
Unless your registered keeper address is incorrect and then you may have bigger problems to deal with.
Is the car on lease? As the lease companies can/do often keep the V5, presumably in their name, as they are the owner, although not not the keeper, could the court paperwork have gone to them?
Was girlfriend informed of the parking fine? Did you give her the option of sorting it out at that point? Or did YOU decide to withhold her name in order to expose the loophole and dodge the fine?
I think the pair of you need to pay up now, clear your name and move on with another life-lesson learnt.
I do agree that these parking companies are scumbags though.
I think if you're going to try to get out of paying anything to car-park companies - and everyone's entitled to their own view on whether the tactics they use if you don't see their often teeny signs, or ultra expensive parking fees, are legitimate or not; you need to at the very least keep a pretty detailed history of speaking and dealing with them about it. Because while you might think it's done with, they're not going to give up so easily, and you need the letter from them that says "We've cancelled this charge, sorry for the inconvenience", if you don't have that, you can assume it's still live.
If you've not even kept the email you sent them about the identity of the driver, then sorry, you've just learned a life-lesson.
You say you have evidence they accepted that you weren't the driver but rejected the appeal anyway - do you still have that?
I sent them an email stating i wasnt the driver and had evidence to prove this. They emailed back stating without providing a name, the assumption was that I was the driver. They stated that whilst they understood i was under no legal obligation to disclose the driver, it woukd be up to a sherif to decide if i had to (this wasnt a court summons, it was a rejection of appeal) . I have their response.
Given I could prove to any court in the land i wasn't driving at the time, and I ceased further communication with them at that point. If a sherif instructed me to disclose this information further down the line then I'd obviously have done that
or maybe they did (and maybe this is harsh) your previous refusal to engage about who was the driver so they can be served any proper charges, and then further 'refusal' to present your side in court might be taken as the kind of person that is relying on a loophole to stall the process
Well the first part, once again the law specifically says I don't need to engage with them over who was driving. As for 'refusal', I didn't refuse to present my side in court. Which is what I'll be stating in my appeal application
Can you please link me to the IRC case as I can't find it.
expose the loophole
They sent the charge to the wrong person. I told them this. They could have confirmed that in 30 seconds by looking at their own cctv. Loophole or not, the charge had nothing to do with me.
think the pair of you need to pay up now, clear your name and move on with another life-lesson learnt.
That's not going to happen. It may have if the 30 days since the hearing hadn't passed as it wouldn't have gone on my credit record. Now it's there regardless.
So next step is I apply to repeal the decree, based on not being there and a strong defense against the charge. If the repeal goes through the rulling is overruled, I then get to go to court. If the finding is then against me i have 30 day's to pay before my credit file is affected. If I win or the parking company decides to drop it then happy days
If the repeal is declined I will have to pay up. But either way their is zero advantage of me paying up now.
If you've not even kept the email you sent them about the identity of the driver, then sorry, you've just learned a life-lesson
I have their response where they acknowledge I told them i wasnt driving. Which is the same thing
Not that it makes any difference but the parking offence happened around June 2024!
The law in scotland is very explicit that i dont have to disclose who was driving
That seems wide open to exploitation - anyone can say "I wasn't driving" and blame a third party.
it seems like although you don't want to need it …. i reckon your now at the point where you will be requiring legal representation even in Scotland.
the parking company have a lot of experience in this and have forced your hand.
That seems wide open to exploitation - anyone can say "I wasn't driving" and blame a third party.
Yep. But to be clear this is for private parking charges only. It is not a defense to any other traffic violation or council parking charge
I'm sure lots of folks do lie about it. But in my case I was at home, on a teams call with dated time stamped emails to prove it. Hence easily provable in court.
That seems wide open to exploitation - anyone can say "I wasn't driving" and blame a third party.
Yes, it's a pretty daft rule. No one is driving the car at the point of the offence (while it is parked) so putting the onus on the registered keeper or owner is reasonable. There are lots of reasons to hate private parking companies, but this isn't one imo.
I'm sure lots of folks do lie about it. But in my case I was at home, on a teams call with dated time stamped emails to prove it. Hence easily provable in court.
Did your girlfriend break the rules of the car park though? Not pay/over stay? If she did I'd have made sure she paid, not try and find a loop-hole.
As others - I'm no fan of private parking firms. But rules are generally put in place because people have taken the piss in the past. My local vet is in a tourist area and had to introduce ANPR parking as tourists kept using their small car park and disappearing for hours.
it seems like although you don't want to need it …. i reckon your now at the point where you will be requiring legal representation even in Scotland.
the parking company have a lot of experience in this and have forced your hand.
A claim for one ticket will go to the small claims court specifically designed so lawyers are not needed.
And - "the value of the claim is £300* or less - there will normally be no award of expenses."
So while the parking company will be paying lawyers to have their day in court there will usually be no costs awarded to them.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure/guide-to-simple-procedure/
And - "the value of the claim is £300* or less - there will normally be no award of expenses."
So while the parking company will be paying lawyers to have their day in court there will usually be no costs awarded to them.
OP said there is £140 in costs awarded against him, plus the £160 ticket.
i reckon your now at the point where you will be requiring legal representation even in Scotland.
As I mentioned there is a specific route to redress this kind of thing in scotland. It's called an 'application to recall a decree'. No lawyer required.
You get one chance to do it, it's not an appeal as such. From the looks of it, if you apply for a recall the sherrif must either grant it, or set up a call to discuss the rational for the recall application and decide from there
So basically. It looks like I'll have the chance to show him all the evidence i wasnt driving on the day I said I said I was
OP said there is £140 in costs awarded against him, plus the £160 ticket.
According to the lady I spoke to at the court. However the value on the credit record is 160. I've not had a letter confirming this.
Just a thought though...the offence was in July 2024. When I initially dealt with the parking Co I owned the car. I sold it back in Oct. So is it possible the dvla has provided the court with the address of the new owner? I'll check on Monday when it opens.
Can you please link me to the IRC case as I can't find it.
IRC posted it half nine last night.
It's not identical to yours but has parallels; The summary would be - woman gets (several) parking tickets, refuses to disclose driver, goes to court. Court finds in favour of the PPC and allows expenses (lawyers fees) because none of it would have happened if she'd simply said that her son was the driver. The linked case is her appeal about whether the fees are correctly awarded against and there court has suggested the PPC didn't do all they could to minimise them, etc., but at no point has the defence of 'but law says I don't have to say who was driving' been seen as anything but obfuscation, and the fact it was finally admitted only once a sheriff asked for the name gives rise to the
The appellant’s earlier failure to respond to any of the notices posted to her was in practical
terms behaviour which was obviously likely to lead to further action and she was repeatedly
warned that further costs might be incurred if she simply buried her head in the sand. The
appellant’s position on appeal was that the notices were nothing to do with her and
therefore there could be no need to respond was unrealistic in practical terms and gave rise
to the litigation in which the respondents were entitled to seek to vindicate their position
So I don't think the 'not obliged to say' is defensible, neither is 'I would have said once it got to court and a Sheriff asked me'.
The bit where you say "They emailed back stating without providing a name, the assumption was that I was the driver. They stated that whilst they understood i was under no legal obligation to disclose the driver, it woukd be up to a sherif to decide if i had to (this wasnt a court summons, it was a rejection of appeal)" is a bit more than you originally said and I think is very relevant. Your rejection of any further attempts to resolve this despite being told they'd go to court and let a Sheriff resolve and even now saying it has nothing to do with you is just wrong, you need to drop that line of argument IMHO, no matter what 'the law' says. Or get a proper lawyer to review in light of the relevant other rulings.
So to the other parts of the 'correspondence' - what else did they send you and by what methods and are you 100% certain there isn't a link to court papers or something in them. Because if you go to battle over this, on the defence of not getting the paperwork and they produce a proof of posting or an email then you'll be screwed. What do I mean by 'refusal' to defend yourself - well, whether the truth is by missing correspondence, or receiving it and not responding, it could well be viewed the same. By your own admission you haven't responded to any further attempts so you saying you got lots of correspondence you didn't respond to, but the key court papers you didn't get but would have responded to if you had might be considered suspect.
I'll have the chance to show him all the evidence i wasnt driving on the day I said I said I was
and the Sheriff, or the PPC, will say that you had ample chance to say who was but refused, and then refused to engage further.
I guess possible they have switched to postal and got the address of the new keeper, but also you say they emailed you previously and then you have not communicated further, so I ask again, how did they communicate - email, post, what?
A claim for one ticket will go to the small claims court specifically designed so lawyers are not needed.
It's been through court and OP found against. They didn't turn up to defend the claim. It's now on proving that they didn't get court papers (could be tricky as PoP / email is assumed received) or that there was no case to answer because 'law says I don't have to say who was driving' - which as I've said isn't the defence it might seem.
Either the court has the wrong address.
It won't just be the court, the PPC will have passed this to debt collectors who will also have sent you up to 4 letters, that's how the PPCs work, they want your money, they don't want to go to court, it costs them more than they recover. The only reason they take people to court is to stop as many people as possible from ignoring the PCNs.
I'd suggest you submit a subject access request to the private parking company to find out what they sent, when and where to.
You can also use the MSE forums although in my experience it's full of ranting loons when what you actually need is sober, practical advice.
And just to clear up the issue around whether you need to name the driver.
England and Wales is covered by provisions in the Protections of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. It is not in force in Scotland yet but I believe it is coming in this year.
POFA allows the private parking company to hold the keeper liable for any parking charge provided the PCN issued in line with requirements of POFA, most notable the PCN must be delivered with 14 days of the offence.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver in Scotland, England or Wales. tpbiker is correct in this regard. However the PPC can hold the keeper liable.
The PPC was banking on tpbiker not contesting the PCN, which if he had done in curt on the basis of no keeper liability should have been a slam dunk win, in fact as soon as he had entered that as a defence prior to the hearing the PPC would almost definitively have discontinued the case knowing they would not win.
Where POFA is applicable, if the keeper names a random 3rd party that doesn't get the keeper off the hook if the 3rd party isn't real or wasn't driving.
The law is all a bit of mess and believe it or not works in favour of the motorist. If PPCs took every unpaid PCN to small claims the system would collapse overnight. This is why they send out threatening letters if you don't pay, most PCNs are legitimate and enforceable, short of taking people to court all the PPC can do is try to frighten people into paying.
That said the appeals process needs tightening up, some PPCs take appeals seriously, others pretty much reject every one
The PPC was banking on tpbiker not contesting the PCN, which if he had done in curt on the basis of no keeper liability should have been a slam dunk win, in fact as soon as he had entered that as a defence prior to the hearing the PPC would almost definitively have discontinued the case knowing they would not win.
I don't think it's as clear cut, the case linked by IRC says the courts (correctly) found in favour of the PPC and saw the refusal to name as obfuscation.
Now, that was multiple tickets and a significant sum and SJ might well be right that for a single ticket they wouldn't bother with the process, but equally the OP did tell them he wasn't the driver which they have acknowledged and they have proceeded to court anyway.
And - "the value of the claim is £300* or less - there will normally be no award of expenses."
So while the parking company will be paying lawyers to have their day in court there will usually be no costs awarded to them.
OP said there is £140 in costs awarded against him, plus the £160 ticket.
But this was possibly because he failed to defend it which may be classed as unreasonable. Which obviously doesn't apply if he was never served properly.
As I mentioned there is a specific route to redress this kind of thing in scotland. It's called an 'application to recall a decree'. No lawyer required.
While fundamentally your right. You might as well be wrong. As the others have pointed out the parking co will have a field day with you.
By your own admission you haven't responded to any further attempts
They originally wrote me a letter with the charge. I appealed online saying i wasnt the driver, they responded by email rejecting my appeal saying they'd assume I was unless i told then who was driving.
This was clearly an attempt to bully me into giving out a name, tactics they are well known for. They even acknowledged i didnt legally need to give them the name. Assumption doesn't stand up in court. They have to prove i was driving, which of course they couldn't
I didn't reply after that, id fulfilled my obligation to tell them i wasnt the driver. Never heard from them again. That was over 14 months ago.
I was advised to not get into an endless back and forth with them about this. I did i what I was legally obliged to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I'd been invited to court I would have attended and that would have been that. 99% chance I'd have won. 1% chance I'd have lost, paid the fine and that woukd be the end of it
I was awarded against purely on a procedural technicality, ie i wasnt in court to oppose it.
Assumption doesn't stand up in court. They have to prove i was driving, which of course they couldn't
Or, they could ask in court who was and then you'd be obliged to say, plus run the risk that the court might look dimly on not disclosing earlier as per the other case.
I was advised to not get into an endless back and forth with them about this.
By who?
which as I see it is absolutely fair and proper no matter what the loophole says.
Whilst I take your point,
If the boot were on the other foot, you'd broken the law and were in court arguing 'fairness' as a defence, you'd lose in short order every time. Driven slowly a couple of metres past a camera-enforced red traffic light to let blues & twos through? Here's your fine and points sir, far more important than enabling an ambulance responding to a heart attack.
If this weren't the case then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the law doesn't care about fairness, it cares about what the law says. If the OP is operating within the law then you can bleat about loopholes and elevate your spine as high as you like but you'll still be wrong.
... whilst I don't know anything about Scottish law, taking the OP to court and ruling against him in secret would seem somewhat "unfair," would it not?
As the others have pointed out the parking co will have a field day with you
On what basis exactly? Do tell?
The sherrif will decide if they recall, not the parking co or it's solicitors who don't get a say in the matter
If then it goes back to court and the parking co can decide whether to pursue me again or not. What exactly are those lawyers going to say exactly? 'He didn't give us a name, and whilst he isn't legally obliged to give use one, and it's clearly not him driving, we feel he should pay anyway as our client is out of pocket? '.
I doubt their solicitors were even there last time. If they were they'd have made a loss given the 300 quid total costs (which included the court admin fees) won't cover a solicitor travelling from Glasgow for the day
Nope..they'll have filed a speculative claim, and luckily for them I never showed up, hence they won on a technically
Either way, there is zero downside fir me in applying for a recall. Either I win, or I'm in no worse position than I am now
So that case IRC linked to. I'm no lawyer however asked chat gpt to summarise
Euro Car Parks Limited v Smaira Bilal Saleem confirms that in Scotland, liability for private parking charges rests with the driver, not automatically with the registered keeper. Euro Car Parks pursued Ms Saleem as keeper, but once evidence showed she was not the driver, the substantive claim could not succeed and was withdrawn. Although the first-instance Sheriff criticised her for not identifying the driver earlier and awarded expenses against her, the Sheriff Appeal Court overturned that decision, holding that she was not legally obliged to identify the driver and that it was inappropriate to penalise her for defending the claim. The appeal court ordered no expenses to either party, reinforcing that private parking operators must prove driver liability and cannot rely on assumption or keeper status.
So I fail to see how that case (which was for a claim of 6k) sets any kind of precedent as to why I shoukd be handing out a name just because a parking co asks me to. Quite the contrary.
The criticism from the judge about not handing over the name related to expenses awarded, and was overturned on appeal, specifically stating she had no legal obligation to do so.
OK, point taken about the Chat GPT summary, maybe you do have a case to defend yourself that way.
taking the OP to court and ruling against him in secret would seem somewhat "unfair," would it not?
Only have the OP's side that docs weren't served. I think it likely that PPC will have to have "proven" they were as part of the court docs, otherwise they could just not bother and then win everything by default (and equally people could just bin anything that came and then claim nothing was ever received).
Until we know that side of the story, maybe achieved by asking the court for a copy of the docs (or a link if they were online?) I'm sceptical it was some sort of 'secret'. It was an open court that for whatever reason the OP didn't turn up to.
Point taken about fairness, that's why the law is being changed (strictly has been, but is not yet enacted) which *might* have implications on how the Sheriff interprets the obligation to disclose. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the judiciary do, interpret the law and as I said earlier turning up (particularly as a layperson) and telling them they've got it all wrong may not be the best course of action, in my limited experience.
The OP’s girlfriend parked illegally. Pay up and move on with your life and you have non of these months of hassle. Not hard is it.
taking the OP to court and ruling against him in secret would seem somewhat "unfair," would it not?
That would. But normally in these cases (car park firms) If your appeal fails, or you don't appeal in the right time frame and you don't provide them with a name, or pay; they default to court automatically.
I'd imagine that's what happened here. As I mentioned before, Until/unless you get a letter from the CP firm telling you the fine's been cancelled, it's still live, regardless of what you think is going on.
Only have the OP's side that docs weren't served.
I'm not arguing they weren't served, I'm categorically saying I never saw them. Whether they went to the wrong address, or my dog ate them doent matter. Serving does not equate to recieved. hence one of the reasons the recall process exists
The credit update only occurs 30 days after the rulling if non payment. The fact I went to the court within days of this credit update to question what was going on woukd strongly indicate I wasn't aware of the ruling before hand.
Either way, you keep referring to the case irc linked to, but that does nothing but strengthen my case, not detract from it.
Edit.. i see you have acknowledged that
That would. But normally in these cases (car park firms) If your appeal fails, or you don't appeal in the right time frame and you don't provide them with a name, or pay; they default to court automatically.
I'd imagine that's what happened here
That's exactly what has happened I expect And if I'd been aware of the court case I'd have turned up and it woukd have been a slam dunk
There isn't going to be a team of hot shot lawyers there trying to trip me up. The law is black and white here.
The OP’s girlfriend parked illegally. Pay up and move on with your life and you have non of these months of hassle. Not hard is it.
So not "illegally" as parking on *private* land is a contractual matter, and a civil offence. If you breach terms of the contract (which you agreed to by parking there) you can be given a penalty charge.
But I'm of the same position - morally you shouldn't do something you know is wrong because you think you can get away with it. But an awful lot of people seem to take a different view when it comes to anything to do with driving/parking/speed limits.
The law is black and white here.
Yep, and has been used against you by folks who do this day in day out. The CP firm isn't interested in who's driving the vehicle beyond a name to send the bill to. So when you told them it wasn't you and you're not going to to tell them who it was, at that point they thought, winner winner chicken dinner. They can legitimately now allow this to proceed to court automatically, and at court the Judge/Sheriff can ask if the V5 and the driver match, at which point all the CP firm has to say is "They refused to say, M'Lud" and the Judge/Sheriff is entitled to draw the conclusion that the V5 and the driver match, and no one has lied or broken the law The CP firm aren't going to tell the Judge/Sheriff that you provided a reason why it couldn't have been you, it's not in their interest to do that. (they still haven't lied or broken the law)
Bang (as they probably don't say) to rights.
The OP’s girlfriend parked illegally. Pay up and move on with your life and you have non of these months of hassle. Not hard is it.
Well firstly it's not 'illegal'. That implies she broke the law. She didn't. She shoukd have paid the 5 quid, it was a genuine mistake . Either way im not legally liable for the fine. Morally...well if we were dealing with a company that had any morals themselves I may have acted differently and given them the name or just paid it
Paying up now is pointless. If they'd sent me the letter after the court case it may have been worth it, but after 30 days I have absolutely nothing to lose by holding out until my recall application is reviewed
Yep, and has been used against you by folks who do this day in day out. The CP firm isn't interested in who's driving the vehicle beyond a name to send the bill to. So when you told them it wasn't you and you're not going to to tell them who it was, at that point they thought, winner winner chicken dinner. They can legitimately now allow this to proceed to court automatically, and at court the Judge/Sheriff can ask if the V5 and the driver match, at which point all the CP firm has to say is "They refused to say, M'Lud" and the Judge/Sheriff is entitled to draw the conclusion that the V5 and the driver match, and no one has lied or broken the law The CP firm aren't going to tell the Judge/Sheriff that you provided a reason why it couldn't have been you, it's not in their interest to do that. (they still haven't lied or broken the law)
Bang (as they probably don't say) to rights
Except you are missing the fairly critical point that I have the right to defend myself and wasn't afforded it...all I had to say was 'it wasn't me driving' and the case is thrown out..
The irony is this could end up costing you a lot more than just paying the fine in the first place.
(regardless of if you're technically right/wrong)
What's more i work in a regulated industry. I'm fully aware of the consequences of a ccj (or whatever its called in scotland). There is no way I'd have ignored a letter from the court stating I owed cash, as I'd have 30 days to pay before it affected my credit rating.
Depending on who you work for, having a CCJ on your file could lead to bigger consequences and conversations with your employer.
(this would have been the case when I worked for HSBC)
Except you are missing the fairly critical point that I have the right to defend myself and wasn't afforded it.
Again, you're the one who has allowed it to proceed directly to court by not engaging with the CP firm.
They will hear the "It wasn't me and I'm not going to tell you who it was" excuse a hundred times a week, which is why you failed the appeal process, You should've at that point asked about what other forms of restitution there are, like Ombudsmen or a higher appeals process with a trades body. The fine would've stayed live, but wouldn't have gone to court, and you may even have got them to canx the fine, but you didn't do that, you just thought that would be the end of it.
They're not playing your game, you're playing theirs.
I will bet money to the value of TP's fine that the original letter/email they sent you asking you to pay up says something like "If you don't pay or tell us who it is driving, then it'll go to court". That's them giving you due warning of the process, at that point they don't have any responsibility to inform you of anything else. They can assume that if you're happy it's going to court that you'll pay attention to when that'll happen and show up accordingly. it's not their's or the court responsibility to do that for you.
I assume you didn't follow up the rejection ?
They originally wrote me a letter with the charge. I appealed online saying i wasn't the driver, they responded by email rejecting my appeal saying they'd assume I was unless i told then who was driving.
You should have followed it up as the 'computer' just said '**** him, the car didn't get there on it's own'. You need to follow things like this through until you get acknowledgement that the 'charge' has been cancelled - It's your car, your responsibility. Being 'pig headed' has ****ed your credit rating and now it's a pain to sort out.
It's surprisingly easy to miss a letter, given that it's mainly junk that arrives - I missed a speeding fine letter that my son acquired in a car that I was the registered keeper - only found out some months later when a 'reminder' arrived - I was very close to getting a large fine as I 'missed' the original note.
Fossy - yup this sounds like a 'I know i'm right so screw you' situation, except op screwed themselves by being an arse
All this thread needs is some appalling spelling and grammar and it would be just like Facebook...
this would have been the case when I worked for HSBC
I work for a bank. It'll make zero difference to me in my current role, and probably none if I go elsewhere. A ccj isn't reason to not employ someone , the context is ( I'm in a recruitment function so know about this). A 160 quid paid off fine isn't going to be an issue
It'll have an impact on my credit rating though
but you didn't do that, you just thought that would be the end of it.
Em nope. Don't presume to know what I thought.
I thought it would either be dropped or go to court. I was more than prepared to go to court. And in court I'd win, I'm 99% sure of that. The issue is I didn't receive the court invite as I should have
I suggest you read up on the application to repeal a decree rather than just spouting an opinion. It's there for exactly this reason, ie to challenge a judgement made in your absence.
I posted this thread hoping that a lawyer may chip in with some proper procedural advice. That's not been the case. Fortunately I've received some good direction elsewhere that has given me some reassurance I can remedy this through proper court procedure.
Standard process is:
Issue PCN
Issue reminder
Keeper appeals, appeal denied, code provided to take it to an independent appeals tribunal (POPLA is fairly independent, IAS is not.)
Regardless of how much the keeper engages, this is followed by letters from a debt collection firm.
That's followed by a letter of claim
Which is followed by court documents.
So either between issuing the PCN and rejecting the appeal tpbiker's address got changed at the PPC or for some reason those multiple letters somehow magically disappeared.
Bearing in mind the PPCs do a credit check before going to court to confirm they have a valid address (and to avoid sending letters to dead people which always guarantees bad publicity).
The PPCs don't want to go to court, it costs them money, they want you to pay up before that point hence the multiple threatening letters.
Anyway as others have pointed out, FAFO is served.
Fossy - yup this sounds like a 'I know i'm right so screw you' situation, except op screwed themselves by being an arse
Pipe down. I've not screwed myself. At worst I'll have a crappy credit rating until I pay off 300 quid. At best ill be able to come back to this thread and point out you are talking crap!
My opinion of parking charge companies is very low given previous experience. I'm not going to be extorted by them when legally I'm in the right.
You call it being an arse, I call it having a spine and refusing to be bullied
Let's see if the sheriff thinks I'm am arse before we start the online name calling..
So either between issuing the PCN and rejecting the appeal tpbiker's address got changed at the PPC or for some reason those multiple letters somehow magically disappeared.
Possibly at the exact time I sold the car
Although in scotland I don't think a debt collection letter can be sent before a court judgement
Either way I can guarantee that I haven't received multiple letters.
Good luck tp, and please keep us posted, if only to say I told you so.
At worst I'll have a crappy credit rating until I pay off 300 quid.
That you’ve had a CCJ will stay on your credit record for years - it won’t disappear when you pay.
That you’ve had a CCJ will stay on your credit record for years - it won’t disappear when you pay.
Yes it will you are correct and it's a minor inconvenience that I'll hopefully get sorted
It'll impact purchases that I use for interst free payments in the short term which is a hassle but hardly life changing.
Big ticket items like mortgages and car loans are not solely reliant on automated checks so as long as its not outstanding I should be grand. My credit history was excellent up until now ( tbf it's still showing as excellent on experian today despite the court order flagging) and I actually got a credit card approved about 5 hrs before I got a decline on a purchase I made.
So yeah, not ideal, but not end of world. Either way, there is a route to resolve this which I will take and hopefully sort it. If a recall is granted the record is wiped, and even if end up losing then I'd just pay and it wouldnt appear again
It might not be “illegal” (civil matter - sorry my lack of accuracy) but you are now in the one in the courts. That’s a legal matter.
So when you are in court and they ask “so who was driving” are you going to perjure yourself to deny knowing who was driving?
All this because the driver of your car didn’t pay a fine (which you don’t seem to argue was incorrectly issued). None of this seems worth the hassle.
We all make mistakes, forgot things or misjudge - whether it’s speeding or parking. Get a fine, pay it and move on.