Objective assessment of Herald Article

GEORGIEPORGIE

I saw the rubbish from a troll about the herald article (the mcdonalds incident). As I live in scotland I wonder if the forum could dissect this and analyse if this actually changes anything? (Or if this is a totally falsified story!)

my initial thoughts - what do the forum regulars think - does this case bring anything new and objective to the table?
1) The driver was captured on CCTV - proving who the driver of the vehicle is (thus negative Scotlands Pre-POFA protection).
2) The driver settled out of court so we dont have a precedence case
3) The driver was clearly parking inappropriately - this isnt an innocent person being mistreated

Finally - could anyone complain to IPSA regarding the inaccuries in the article e.g. keeper liability in civil cases (what the hell!!?)

thanks forum

trisontana

Unless there was some sort of facial recognition there was no proof who the driver was.

catfunt

I have no reason to believe the gist of the story is incorrect.. however if the article actually said that the keeper is liable if the driver is not identified, then that needs challenging with the paper, as that is simply not true in Scotland.

This case does not change the general rules in Scotland - I assume the driver was somehow identified enough for the PPC to go chasing him, serves him right for taking the mickey... it's people like that who causes the "need" for a PPC in the first place.

The original trolling thread has been deleted (presumably as one of the posts was quite offensive), so I'll need to go looking for the story.

fisherjim

This must be the article you are talking about:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14331874.Driver_who_used_McDonalds_as_personal_car_park_faced_with_bill_for_thousands/

GEORGIEPORGIE

yep... good points - thanks for your consideration

dazster

There is nothing to analyse. Did Porky Perky have evidence as to the driver? Did the "victim" simply fold in the face of legal intimidation? We just don't know.

Two things are for sure: (i) The suggestion that the vehicle owner is presumed liable in civil cases is codswallop (ii) PPC's are not going to start pursuing court cases for single tickets in Scotland where the driver hasn't shopped himself (despite The Porcine One's bluster and bullshine)

salmosalaris

Parking charges ( reluctant as I am to use that term ) are as enforceable in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK .
The only difference is that a claim can only be made against the driver. The identity of the driver only has to be established on the balance of probabilities so if the defendant pleads "I was not the driver" unless the Claimant produces evidence to the contrary the balance is tipped in favour of the defendant .
In the absence of such an assertion or any other evidence the court may decide that as the defendant was the RK and has not denied driving that they were probably the driver ,it may decide that is not enough to tip the balance in favour of the Claimant .
With the uncertainty it is pretty pointless PPC's bringing claims for single tickets ( other than pour encourager les autres) but large amounts may be worth a punt .
The reported case changes nothing .

Herzlos

I haven't found any way to confirm if there was ever a court session scheduled, to confirm from that point of view.

The whole thing does read like a PPC press release that the journalist has regurgitated in entirety without any fact checking though.

I think there's either an inconsistency or just bad wording (typical of the PPC) in that the driver settled before court, but were interviewed upon leaving court, and the response from the driver seems incredibly contrite - so much so that I'm curious who spoke to the driver, if at all.

Since it was allegedly settled before court, there's no precedent, and the drivers supposed statement doesn't make sense. I'd have expected something more like "I'm disappointed with the outcome, but it was too much to risk". Unless of course, they offered him a substantial discount to make a statement to the effect that he regrets internet advice.

The whole this is pretty fishy.

Redx

I have always believed that IF a driver can be identified by a PPC then that person can be taken to court and if no settlement is reached beforehand then a court can and will decide the outcome (even in Scotland)

I have always believed that persistent "offenders" should be prosecuted when it is clear their actions are selfish and they do not have permission to park nor are they using the facilities and they get no sympathy from me, so this guy gets none either, He seems to be a law unto himself if true.

its a well known fact that a PPC is more likely to raise a court case if several or a dozen or more "tickets" are raised by the same person or vehicle on private land and we have seen many cases such as this being raised on here as topics or threads, but few if any get to court (this one wasnt settled by a court either)

I do not believe that the keeper or owner is deemed to be the driver so I think the article is incorrect

I believe charges can be enforced anywhere in the UK if the laws are observed and due diligence is used, providing it can be shown the correct person is before the court and did break a contract etc

I do not believe that CPS "own" that car park, more likely they are employed by somebody else to patrol it and are acting as agent only

This driver didnt come here or pepipoo on his internet searches because we would have told him the facts about Scotland, plus he would have been told to stop parking there without permission because there will be test cases that involve selfish people like him being put before a court

that article has many spelling mistakes considering its an online article and in this electronic age spell checkers and proof reading should have highlighted those mistakes, or a decent editor should have noticed them , its like a kid wrote it using predictive text near the end

beamerguy

After the fiasco yesterday with that troll, this all sounds like a hussle with the newspaper being the mark

Jody Harrison, Reporter of the paper who did that article should be contacted and the error be explained as it is very misleading for the public.

Just how many folks in Scotland will read it and out of ignorance bow down to Combined Parking Solutions and pay.
Most of those have never heard of MSE or Peppipoo and will be none the wiser.

Combined Parking Solutions (CPS), who own the car park ?
DO THEY

He received 33 tickets between March and August last year and was spotted on CCTV taking them off his car and throwing them away before driving off.
Clearly as tickets were issued, its not ANPR so whose CCTV are they talking about ? If it is Mcdonalds maybe they could throw some light on this. This does damage to Mcdonalds and regardless that the so called "Andrew Wales"did this, who would want to go to that Mcdonalds ?

And its interesting that yesterday this newspaper showed a picture of the Sheriffs Court in Glasgow but today it is a picture of Mcdonalds ..... why would the newspaper do that ?

It's all very fishy

AltheHibby

The name doesn't ring true either. Sounds suspiciously royal.

An FOI to Scottish Court Service asking if CPS were due in court should flush out the truth.