Parking fines

[doulikefish]

45 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

So it's called a 'Simple Procedure Notice of Claim' 

 

Is that not a letter before the company actually takes you to court ? Ie Get the threat out there 

[Bairnardo]

54 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Reading more into the way out of this by using the 'I wasn't driving, and therfore never entered into a contract' line...

I see that the were going to introduce the Keeper Liability law in Scotland this year, does anyone know if this is in force yet? I can't seem to find anything on it.

That legislation keeps getting kicked into the long grass I think. Long may it continue.

Re the driver, you are under no obligation to incriminate yourself so even if it was you, you simply say nothing. 

[Venti]

Got a fine from parking behind the old Greenock library.

Just dingied it. 

Slightly OT, but do you ever sweep into a parking space & wish there was someone there to appreciate it?

[lichtgilphead]

3 hours ago, johnnydun said:

So it's called a 'Simple Procedure Notice of Claim' 

It reads that if I don't respond, they will almost certainly award the claim to the claimant including interest and expenses.

It also states that the companies solicitor must serve me this document. I never signed for it, however is a photo of it being served now enough?

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.

3 hours ago, Left Back said:

When you lose this case without them having any evidence you were driving the vehicle you’ve changed the game.

They’ll pursue every ticket after that.  You’ll be 100% responsible for shifting the balance of power to the parking companies and fucking it up for the rest of us.

Cheers 

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.

[Bairnardo]

These c***s absolutely try to make their correspondence look like official court stuff aswell, and use as much legalese as they can. Its basically a moral duty to stiff them, which should actually be extended to shops who utilise them in their car parks

[johnnydun]

9 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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.

This is great info, thank you so much.

That is the form I received with a case reference number.

The bottom link you gave me was the one I read earlier, and that's exactly what I took from it. 

I'm not going to admit breach of contract, I'm going to say I never entered a contract as it wasn't me. 

[Left Back]

30 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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.

Look up humour in the dictionary.  It’s under H.

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Look up humour in the dictionary.  It’s under H.

Yeah, it's hilarious to reply to a thread asking for legal advice with scaremongering. Idiot.

10 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

This is great info, thank you so much.

That is the form I received with a case reference number.

The bottom link you gave me was the one I read earlier, and that's exactly what I took from it. 

I'm not going to admit breach of contract, I'm going to say I never entered a contract as it wasn't me. 

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)

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Yeah, it's hilarious to reply to a thread asking for legal advice with scaremongering. Idiot.

I see you’re branching out from making a tit of yourself in the politics forum.

You’ll find spreading your wings pretty easy tbh.

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I see you’re branching out from making a tit of yourself in the politics forum.

You’ll find spreading your wings pretty easy tbh.

I don't see anyone thanking you for your contributions to the thread. 

Perhaps you should just STFU about things you know nothing about.

Edited February 25 by lichtgilphead

[Left Back]

21 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I don't see anyone thanking you for your contributions to the thread. 

Perhaps you should just STFU about things you know nothing about.

Stunning advice from a poster that’s regularly proven to be talking utter rubbish and now fancies himself as a lawyer.

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Stunning advice from a poster that’s regularly proven to be talking utter rubbish and now fancies himself as a lawyer.

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?

 

 

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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?

 

 

Don’t back down, double down.

You started flinging insults at me and now you’re moaning that I reply?  Wow.

Not a lawyer then.  Glad we established that.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Sergeant Wilson]

15 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

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?

 

 

^^^

 

[lichtgilphead]

 

Just now, welshbairn said:

Dontcha love Sundays! 

France vs Italy isn't really engaging my full attention...

7 minutes ago, Left Back said:

You started flinging insults at me and now you’re moaning that I reply?  Wow.

If you make idiotic posts, expect to be called an idiot.

8 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Not a lawyer then.  Glad we established that.

No, not a lawyer. I'm more the person that lawyers come to for specialist advice about consumer & trading law.

[tamthebam]

I'm surprised the sods bothered to take @johnnydun to court as it's about the same amount to lodge a small claim (or modern equivalent) as is the supposed "parking fee".

The case will end up in front of a summary sheriff who you might hope has been stung by one of these gits before they became a sheriff.. 

[tamthebam]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

I expect they think if they take enough people to court they can eventually get a judgement that they can use to terrify loads of other people into paying up. 

or maybe they're English w@nkers who know little of Scots law

[lichtgilphead]

9 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

I'm surprised the sods bothered to take @johnnydun to court as it's about the same amount to lodge a small claim (or modern equivalent) as is the supposed "parking fee".

The case will end up in front of a summary sheriff who you might hope has been stung by one of these gits before they became a 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

 

[tamthebam]

Just now, welshbairn said:

What would you do in JD's case? I get the impression you know more about Scottish law than most of us. 

Get his father to zap them from above. 

Joking apart and bearing in mind I ain't legally qualified if JD says that the sign was obscured by scaffolding and he has proof of that then it would seem he has a case. 

[tamthebam]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Stick to that rather than denying he was in the car or can't remember? 

As far as I know the onus is not on him to prove that he was in the car, the onus is on the pursuer to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he was. This question of ownership of a vehicle seems to apply to England at the moment rather than Scotland. 

I doubt they have any evidence to show he was driving the car, just a picture of the car as parked. I don't know if civil cases have the same rules of disclosure of evidence as criminal ones but I would have thought they would otherwise how can you prepare a defence and as the pursuers don't seem to have given JD anything so far you can draw your own conclusions.