PCN Scotland Only

Real_McCoy

Hi All

After reading the "Newbie" section on Scotland, as it was posted in Nov 2013 I wonder if anyone can clear up a couple of questions.

1.The section advises to ignore the PCN as it is the Driver who is liable and not the registered owner of the vehicle. Is there a process where the company, Parking Eye, can force the registered owner to inform who was driving.

2.If someone was to ignore the letters coming in, what is likely to happen as the letters become more "threatening" in their tone.

3.What is the likelihood of a firm, Parking Eye, actually taking up court action.

4.Has there been any successful actions been taken against members of the public by firms who operate these private car parks.

5.If the member of the public was to be taken to small claims by a firm, what are the likely costs to involve

Thanks

Real McCoy

Redx

although it is showing as 2013 , it is updated regularly so always check the date it was "edited" , which is much more recent, but the advice is still the same for Scotland, especially as Scotland has no POFA2012 so only the driver can be deemed "liable"

1) no , not possible , not even in england never mind the other 3 "countries"

2) harassment in any modern form, especially letters but possibly by telephone or text if they find out those details too

3) never say never but the court process is different in Scotland, so they rarely seem to happen, hence why the IGNORE option is always advised

4) yes , but for Scotland is very rare and usually only if the driver is known or can be proven (so against the driver, not the keeper)

5) in england its typically between £175 and £225 per ticket

in Scotland the statute is 5 years , not 6 years

Real_McCoy

Thanks Redx

Would you be aware of how many letters and a timescale there is likely to be if ignored

Redx

could be many , many letters

timescale is 5 years as I said in the last paragraph

Real_McCoy

And further down the line, assuming for whatever reason they obtain my telephone number, what would be the stock response to their query, would it be to admit ownership of the car and nothing else

You just know these people will latch onto any weakness and if its a child that answers then I assume they will use any tool at their disposal

Redx

you do not have to answer them, nor answer any questions, nor give any information out , whatsoever

my advice is "no comment" , like you see in many tv programmes and films

Real_McCoy

Assuming that all ignores fail and they opt for the court action, I assume at this point its either defend your self or use a lawyer.

If found in favour of firm, what are the lasting effects to myself - apart from having to pay the costs. Does it affect credit rating or anything else

Redx

I cannot advise you about the laws in scotland, but I assume it would be the same conclusion as in england and wales

which is

pay the judgment promptly, within the timescale issued by the "judge" , usually between 14 and 28 days in england, then the matter is considered settled and no issues with your credit rating

in england and wales, its not paying the judgment that leads to a CCJ, which then affects your credit rating

this info is easily googled or found using the forum search box, although I appreciate things are different in scotland, as is some terminology etc

fisherjim

My "stock response"if they phoned me would be the same as any scam phone call "FO"!;)

Real_McCoy

And finally, assuming that all correspondence has been ignored - till court - and even at court at no time admitting or offering the name of the driver then it is pretty safe to assume that a small claims action is bound to fail given that the drtiver has not been identified to pursue the claim against.

If the driver is not identified then the case could not be awared to the firm pursuing - sound about correct?

Redx

any claim would go forward on the assumption that the keeper and driver are one and the same

any claims that win tend to win if the driver is actually identified, even if its from cctv footage or witness statements or photographs etc

court is a lottery, never assume anything at all

normally it is not economic to pursue a single case in scotland, but if there were more tickets issued then it becomes more likely due to the payback involved from a win

if the info provided at the time is correct, then there was such a multiple ticket win earlier this year in scotland where the driver WAS identified (not necessarily by the apellant or defendant)