Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DD94
    • By DD94 1st Jun 17, 12:25 PM
    • 29Posts
    • 36Thanks
    DD94
    Horizon 'Simple Procedure' Court Case Scotland (take 2)
    • #1
    • 1st Jun 17, 12:25 PM
    Horizon 'Simple Procedure' Court Case Scotland (take 2) 1st Jun 17 at 12:25 PM
    Sorry to start another thread on this but the last one was locked (probably because it was hijacked by trolls). As explained Horizon parking have filed a 'Simple Procedure' against myself as the registered keeper in my local sheriff court. The offences are 6 tickets for failure to pay for parking totaling £660. The dates of the offences are May/June last year and I genuinely have no idea who was driving on these days - neither do Horizon nor their Solicitors (Mellicks). Below are the details of the claim they have made. I am not sure how familiar the regulars on here with the Scottish 'Simple Procedure' claim process but the help so far has been great.

    D1. "What is the background to your claim"

    “The Claimants are managers of a Pay & Display car park situated at Atlantic Square, York Street, Glasgow, G2 8JQ on behalf of the owners and by dint thereof have right and title inter alia to (a) occupy same, (b) provide a parking control service and there and (c) collect all unpaid parking charges that might arise from time to time at the car park. The Respondent parked his white Volkswagon Polo BLUEGT motor vehicle registration number **** *** at said car park on six occasions without displaying a valid ticket and/or parking out of hours and/or Pay & Display ticket expired and/or out of marked bay and/or failure to pay for parking and/or obstructive parking. She did so notwithstanding the Claimants displaying signage which warned a Parking Charge Notice of £70 would be issued in the event of one or more of the foregoing contraventions occurring. Parking Charges were issued by the claimants to the Respondent in respect of 6 contraventions. Each parking charge was in the sum of £70. Failing payment of that sum within 28 days the Respondent incurred further costs as notified in the said signage of £40 for each parking charge. In the circumstances the Claimants seek payment from the Respondent of the sum of £660 which is the amount sued for.”

    D2. "Where did this take place?"

    The parties are as designed in the instance. The Claimants have no reason to believe that any agreement exists prorogation the subject matter of this cause to any other Court, nor do they have reason to believe that any proceedings many be pending before another Court involving the same cause of action between the same parties as those names herein. This Court has jurisdiction since the Respondent has resided at the address in the instance for three months immediately prior to the raising of this action and is domiciled there. The nature and circumstances of the said residence indicate that the Respondent has a substantial connection with Scotland. The Court accordingly has jurisdiction in terms of Section 41 to 46 of, Article 52 of Schedules 1 and 8 to, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982.

    D5. "If your claim is successful, what do you want from the Respondent?"

    "1. To grant Decree against the Respondent for payment to the Claimants of the sum of £660 together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of citation to follow hereon until payment.
    2. To find the Respondent liable in the expenses of this action"

    D7. "Why should your claim be successful?"

    "My claim should be successful because the Respondent breached the terms agreed to on parking the vehicle in the car park and the sum sued for is not excessive."

    D8. "What steps have you taken, if any, to try to settle the dispute with the Respondent?"

    "To try and settle the dispute I have taken the following steps. The Claimants have made repeated application to the Respondent for payment, but the Respondent refuses or delays to do so and accordingly the present action has been rendered necessary."

    The questions I have to answer are as follows:

    D1. "What is the background to this claim?"
    D2. "Why should the claim not be successful?"
    D3. "Are there any additional respondents you think should be responding to this claim?"
    D4. "Which additional respondents do you think should be responding to this claim?"
    D5. "What steps, if any, have you taken to settle the dispute with the claimant?"

    Any help in what I should/shouldn't be mentioning in my answer to these questions would be appreciated.
Page 2
    • DD94
    • By DD94 7th Jun 17, 1:37 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94

    Please note spelling of 'defence', unless north of the border you've adopted the American dictionary (maybe in anticipation of another go at Independence ).
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Going to blame microsoft word for that, although thank you for pointing it out!
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    • 2,159 Posts
    • 2,581 Thanks
    waamo
    I concur with Fruitcake, although my only hesitation is in regard to your statement on Beavis.


    I'm not sure whether it is 'persuasive' or whether it is 'binding'. Perhaps others might confirm which one? Best you get it right in your defence.

    Please note spelling of 'defence', unless north of the border you've adopted the American dictionary (maybe in anticipation of another go at Independence ).
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Beavis is binding in Scotland. I would just reinforce the point that the changing of genders suggests they don't know who the driver was and are on a fishing trip with this.

    It's well put together imho.
    This space for hire.
    • DD94
    • By DD94 7th Jun 17, 3:46 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    Beavis is binding in Scotland.
    Originally posted by waamo
    Okay so take that part out? or still point out it doesn't apply to Pay and Display?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Jun 17, 4:25 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    Okay so take that part out? or still point out it doesn't apply to Pay and Display?
    Originally posted by DD94
    sort of yes ; and yes

    so remove any hints that it doesnt apply in the UK (because it does) but yes point out that Beavis overstayed on a free car park so does not apply in your case on a pay and display car park
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • DD94
    • By DD94 12th Jun 17, 11:49 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    D1. "What is the background to this claim?"
    This is the first piece of correspondence I have received from Horizon parking and the first I have been made aware of any alleged parking charges. I have received no letters from this company relating to any of the 6 alleged charges. I do recall receiving a debt collection letter from a company I believe to be called Zenith Collections at some point in 2016. However, since I had received no correspondence from the parking company beforehand I assumed this letter was some sort of scam and discarded the letter. I never heard from the debt collection company again.

    D2. "Why should the claim not be successful?"
    I deny any debt is owed to this company. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle **** *** but this car is used by other drivers as my insurance documents will show. The car is also used by others on their own insurance. The dates in question are around 1 year ago and it is unreasonable to expect me to know who was driving the vehicle on these days, furthermore this is not information I am required to provide.
    It is not clear on what basis the Claimant is pursuing me. They appear to have obtained my details as keeper from the DVLA but are asserting that I was the driver on the days in question. Section D1 of the claim form states: “The Respondent parked his…” They have provided no evidence of this. Furthermore, they refer to me, the keeper, as not only the driver but as both male and female. This, and the general content of the claim form, leads me to believe this has been some sort of template that has been submitted.
    Only the driver on the day can contract with the parking company and I deny being that driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof that I was the driver on those occasions. Failure to do so should lead to the same result as Vehicle Control Services v Mr Robb in which Sheriff Alastair Brown dismissed the case on the grounds Vehicle Control Services had provided “no evidence” Mr Robb had been the driver on any of the occasions.
    Alternatively, if the Claimant is pursing me as keeper, unlike other parts of the UK there is no keeper liability in Scotland. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which allowed liability for a parking charge to be transferred from driver to keeper if the driver of the vehicle was unknown, was not enacted in Scotland. As such, there is no keeper liability.
    The administrative charge is unreasonable and an attempt at double collecting. It’s unreasonable to expect the Claimant incurred a cost of £40, especially since no letters were sent regarding any of these alleged parking charges. I wish Horizon to show exactly how this cost was incurred.
    The £70 charge is a penalty and not representative of a loss to the company. Any losses to the company are limited to the parking cost allegedly not paid on the days in question. The Beavis Supreme Court ruling is not relevant to Pay and Display car parks as the operator is not employed by and acting on behalf of surrounding retailers.
    Summary:

    • I, The Respondent, deny being the driver on the days in question – the vehicle has multiple users.
    • There is no keeper liability in Scotland.
    • I dispute Horizon incurred the administration charge they are claiming.
    • The charge is a penalty and not representative of the loss incurred.

    I ask the sheriff to dismiss this case under 1.8(11) as having no real prospect of success.

    D3. "Are there any additional respondents you think should be responding to this claim?"
    No.

    D4. "Which additional respondents do you think should be responding to this claim?"
    N/A

    D5. "What steps, if any, have you taken to settle the dispute with the claimant?"
    As far as I am aware, no independent Alternative Dispute Resolution service is available in Scotland and as such no steps have been taken as the debt is denied. I would like to again point out that I have received no letters from Horizon in relation to any of the alleged parking charges and their claim that they have made multiple attempts to settle the dispute is false.
    Last edited by DD94; 12-06-2017 at 1:47 PM.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 12th Jun 17, 12:21 PM
    • 6,092 Posts
    • 5,525 Thanks
    Herzlos
    I'd blank out your registration number here, or they'll try and use anything you said on here against you.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 17, 8:46 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Maybe you could add that:

    the Claimant is not the landowner and the Respondent puts them to strict proof of a relevant chain of authority from the landowner, allowing them to sue and the defined location/boundary, and under what specific circumstances/breaches charges can be raised and pursued.


    And a separate point that:

    the ''six occasions'' are described so vaguely - a claim that was preceded by no evidence or photos and included no copy of the contractual terms - that it is impossible for a registered keeper to understand the terms/alleged breach(es) and make an informed defence. The vague particulars appear to be a cut & paste 'one size fits all' speculative punt, typical of this industry in claims lost every week in England. It is certainly not something that the Scottish Courts should entertain, a claim so vague that it lists six alternatives, either/or: ''without displaying a valid ticket and/or parking out of hours and/or Pay & Display ticket expired and/or out of marked bay and/or failure to pay for parking and/or obstructive parking''. As such, the Respondent asks that the court uses its discretion to strike out this claim for showing no cause of action.


    I would remove this, because this suggests that you know what the allegation is:
    The £70 charge is a penalty and not representative of a loss to the company. Any losses to the company are limited to the parking cost allegedly not paid on the days in question. The Beavis Supreme Court ruling is not relevant to Pay and Display car parks as the operator is not employed by and acting on behalf of surrounding retailers.
    Summary:
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-06-2017 at 8:49 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DD94
    • By DD94 12th Jun 17, 10:00 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    Thank you coupon-mad, I will update my answers tomorrow.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 6:24 AM
    • 1,819 Posts
    • 3,215 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Edit - wrong thread
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • DD94
    • By DD94 13th Jun 17, 9:07 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    Not sure how familiar you all are with the simple procedure process, as far as I know it is only around a year old. So far they have submitted no evidence as such, no photos or copies of tickets. If the judge decided to set a court date I imagine they would bring them to the table at that time. With that in mind, I am not sure whether to send my insurance documents in my initial response. I don't really want to do it if I don't need to and potentially set the other driver up for questioning. Do you think I should just hold off like they have and if it goes to court then provide them then?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 5:41 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Google tells me this:

    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court---civil-procedure-rules/simple-procedure-rules

    ''Part 10: Documents and other evidence
    This Part is about how parties should lodge documents and other evidence with the court before a hearing. This Part is also about how parties can apply for orders to recover documents from other people.''
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Nostrus
    • By Nostrus 14th Jun 17, 11:46 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Nostrus
    Simple Procedure came into force in November 2016 so it isn't even a year old.

    However, it has been put in place to try and cut down on court hearings so it may be the sheriff simply decides in his chambers, or calls a case management discussion.
    • DD94
    • By DD94 19th Jun 17, 11:48 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    thank you everyone for your help and advice, I am going to be handing the form back into the court this week. I will let you know what happens next
    • Scottishgal
    • By Scottishgal 5th Jul 17, 7:25 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Scottishgal
    Hi, how did you get on with the Court? I've received a Simple Procedure Form
    • DD94
    • By DD94 8th Jul 17, 2:32 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    Not heard anything back from the courts yet. Although yesterday I did receive more documents from the solicitors acting for horizon. Basically a letter asking me to name who was driving on the days in question if I maintain I was not. Plus a copy of the lease and copies of 6 letters with photos they apparently sent to me (none of which I ever actually did receive). Based on the fact I honestly do not know who was driving on those days and as far as I know I'm under no legal obligation to name them anyway - I don't plan on replying? As far as I am concerned the matter is with the courts to decide now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jul 17, 5:09 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Although yesterday I did receive more documents from the solicitors acting for horizon. Basically a letter asking me to name who was driving on the days in question if I maintain I was not.
    Wow that's atrocious.

    You do NOT have to name the driver but of course they want to know because they can win cases v drivers but not v a keeper.

    Actually I would reply and be assertive that you do not know who was driving but will bring evidence to court in the form of your car insurance, showing more than one driver (if true).

    I'm quoting Tom Trinder here, these are the court cases to cite to tell the Solicitors that you know your stuff:

    Sheriffs in Scotland do not routinely ask who the driver was. Both Mark Robb and Neil Halyburton won their cases at Dundee court against VCS using a 'driver not identified' defence. The Sheriff did not require them to name the driver and dismissed VCS claim as incompetent in the Robb case. Check the Courier around June 2015.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DD94
    • By DD94 8th Jul 17, 8:54 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    DD94
    Thank you coupon mad, I think you're right and I will reply. I have already referenced the mark robb case in my initial response but will do so again.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 8th Jul 17, 9:21 PM
    • 40,521 Posts
    • 80,919 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Dear solicitors, bearing in mind that your first duty is to the court, and that a keeper cannot be held liable in Scotland, why are you wasting the courts' time with this frivolous case against me, the keeper?

    If you want to take the driver to court you should ask your client who it is, not me. If your client doesn't know who the driver is, why on earth are you representing a company that has absolutely no prospect of success against a keeper in a Scottish court?
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 08-07-2017 at 10:02 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Jul 17, 11:10 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,778 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Perfect Fruity, perfect.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Scottishgal
    • By Scottishgal 11th Aug 17, 11:24 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Scottishgal
    Simoke Procedure Update?
    Hi

    Any word back from the Court, we are in a similar position to you and now have a meeting with the Sheriff!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

151Posts Today

2,209Users online

Martin's Twitter