Forum menu
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.