lichtgilphead

Without any need for further comment, there's this, from only 2 days ago https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/snp-calls-for-sanctions-to-be-stepped-up-on-russia/

Move abroad* and buy the stream through a VPN. You can always turn the sound off. Personally, I prefer to swear at every mention of "Dawn French" or "Beans on Toast". It takes my mind off the score, and at least I'm still contributing toward the club's financws *Abroad is wherever your computer appears to be located outside the UK

You really are a f*cking moron, aren't you.

FFS, you moron. I already said that Johnny's local TS department don't do civil law advice or representation. Otherwise I would send him there. I'm over 100 miles away, so can't look at the documentation myself, and would not suggest he posts it on here. Without full details, I'm in no position to offer full professional advice. I don't even know who the pursuers are or the amount they are claiming! If you don't know that many solicitors offer an initial free 15 minutes, I'm not sure how I can convince you. Maybe you could google "free initial legal consultation scotland" and look at the first 20 pages or so of results. In 15 minutes, a solicitor can give an initial opinion of the chances of success, and set out his fees. If he glances at the papers & thinks there's no chance of Johnny winning, he should say so. He would send Johnny away with that free advice in those circumstances. If he thinks that Johnny would win, but wouldn't get his costs back, he would also send Johnny away with that free advice. Yeah, yeah. My advice is rubbish. I'm amazed that my employers continue to have such a good opinion of me, after that devastating critique. Maybe, just maybe, they've looked at my professional qualifications & experience instead of taking the word of a random poster on P'n'B. As my services are provided free, I don't know much about eligibility for Legal Aid. Who would you ask about that? Anyway, unless you have some sensible points to make, I would invite you to f*ck off and stop spamming this thread.

Agree with Biggie. Was going to wear my quartz Sturmanskie today, but battery appears to be dead. Put my manual wind Gagarin on instead.

I never claimed to be a lawyer, but I listed my professional qualifications. You would be surprised by how often firms of solicitors come to Trading Standards for consumer law advice, then charge their clients for passing on the free advice given. However, as I know that Johnny's local TS department do not provide a civil law advice or representation service, I suggested that he contact a solicitor for some free advice. He can then decide whether or not to engage legal representation. As Welshy states, he should find out what the worst case scenario is and what chance he has of winning. It will cost a 4 figure sum to have a solicitor to represent him in court, plus the same (or more) for the pursuer if costs are awarded against him. That's a lot to gamble for an invoice for under £200, even though I suspect that costs won't be awarded. However, if costs aren't awarded, he won't get his solicitors fees back. Personally, I would weigh up my chances of winning after taking some free advice, represent myself & hope that the pursuer either abandons or doesn't turn up on the day. So, what's your expert advice @Left Back, or are you just sniping from the sidelines with your usual irrelevant nonsensical shite? Some of us in this thread are actially trying to help other posters.

II've edited my original post to match yours

That's what you need to concentrate on, then. Your defence should be to ask them to produce these letters in court, with specific reference to how they knew they had been delivered (recorded delivery etc) Are your details with DVLA up to date? That's how they will have traced you originally. If they sent the letters to a previous address, then you can state that you had no knowledge of the original debt. Again, I would suggest that you take advantage of the initial free 15 minutes with a solicitor before going any further.

Thinking more about the earlier letters, did you get copies of them in the bundle from the court? Is there an obvious reason why you didn't receive them (wrong name, address etc). If so, you could say that you would happily have paid the original penalty charge at the initial discounted rate, but as you didn't know about it, it's unjust to punish you by increasing the amount they say you are due. Btw - don't dignify the penalty charge by calling it a fine. It's not a fine - just an unpaid invoice.

If you didn't receive the earlier letters, then thats the avenue to go down. They have to show that they made reasonable efforts to resolve the matter before starting court proceedings. If you saw the other signs, then the scaffolding defence is unlikely to work

Definitely. All he needs to show is that he was unaware (and couldn't reasonably have been aware) that any conditions applied to his use of the carpark. However, if he drove past a big sign at the entrance or couldn't leave the site without seeing a sign, he might have difficulty in convincing the court. I had this experience when Parking Eye took over the carpark in Arrochar - had stopped, taken the dogs for a pee then went for a pee myself. Got back to the car to see a big sign I hadn't noticed on the way in as it was dark. Chose to pay the £1 as I had been in for more than the usual 10 minute grace period. Whilst you don't have to say who was driving, it has been suggested that refusal to identify who was actually driving might not be looked upon favourably by the Sheriff

Depends how much the parking company have upped the original PCN, I suppose. If the sum claimed is under £300, it only costs £20 (last time I looked) , but no expenses are usually awarded in these cases. If it does go further, I suspect that they may withdraw or not turn up on the day, but that's dependent on @johnnydun standing his ground

France vs Italy isn't really engaging my full attention... If you make idiotic posts, expect to be called an idiot. No, not a lawyer. I'm more the person that lawyers come to for specialist advice about consumer & trading law.

Do you do this personal shit in every thread you pollute? Happy to debate my consumer advice credentials with yours, however. I hold the professional Trading Standards qualification & am a chartered member of CTSI. How about you?

I don't see anyone thanking you for your contributions to the thread. Perhaps you should just STFU about things you know nothing about.

Yeah, it's hilarious to reply to a thread asking for legal advice with scaremongering. Idiot. I thought that you said earlier that you were there? There's no harm in admitting that you were driving if you couldn't have seen the signs. Their case will be based upon you being unable to avoid seeing the signs, so you accepted the terms and conditions by parking there. Lying about not being there is a particularily bad idea. They may have photos of you. Concentrating on why you didn't see the signs is the best idea. Most solicitors will give you a free 15 minute consultation, so try running your proposed defence past one of them. Another potential defence could be if they have just taken you straight to court without attempting to resolve the matter first. Have you had any previous correspondence with them (even one-way, with you ignoring their previous letters)

That doesn't sound right to me. Here's the top of the current form 4a Is that what you have received, and does it have a case reference number? The whole form is available at https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/forms/sheriff-court-forms/simple-procedure-forms-and-standard-orders-from-31-may-2023/form-4a---response-form.pdf?sfvrsn=f36d870_3 Feel free to PM me with whatever you have recieved if you are not sure. Absolute nonsense. Admitting a breach of contract in a Sheriff Court is not equal to a stated case set out by an appeal court. The only Scottish case I'm aware of is the Dundee woman who ignored over 200 PCN's after admitting that she was aware of the signs & ignoring them, and (as far as I'm aware), this was only a court of first instance - not an appeal court. @johnnydun's case is nothing like this. If @johnnydun chooses to admit breach of contract, the Sheriff will not have made a judgement, so the case will not have set a legal precedent With regard to the "who was driving" argument, I would refer @johnnydun to https://consumeradvice.scot/ive-received-a-parking-ticket-from-a-private-car-park-i-dont-believe-i-should-have-received-this-do-i-have-to-pay-the-ticket/#:~:text=There is no law in,can appeal an unreasonable charge. I would also suggest that he contacts Advice Direct Scotland rather than Dundee CAB - details are on the the link ^^^ directly above.

FTFY

How can it be an appeal if you've not lost a case yet? I've not done civil law advice in years, but this talk of appeals doesn't sound right. Pop into the Sheriff Court and ask the clerks for advice as to what the document is in the first instance

Has the court actually made a judgement (because you didn't turn up for a previously arranged hearing) or is it an invitation to a hearing to put your case?

Is the letter actually from the court or is it just a baseless threat to take you to court?

Piccadilly or Victoria?

I'm sure that if my comparison with standing up for your principles is "quite frankly pathetic", then better posters than you will be queuing up to condemn me. However, I cannot see past the UK's two main parties appearing to support genocide in 2024. So far, people have suggested that the UK's reasons may relate to arms sales, or to remaining the USA's lap dog, or to pretending that any condemnation or boycott will have no effect on the situation. All I'm asking you to do is to clarify which of these positions you support, or whether you have another (as yet undisclosed) reason for supporting the UK's inaction. Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't answered the question. Should the UK stand on their principles (like in 1939) or on their hopes to sell weaponry (like now) Simple question.

Why not record that fact then? Make voting compulsory, but allow voters to make a "I don't want to participate" vote that remains in force until revoked?