Parking Eye notice by post - parked in England Live in Scotland

Castle

pappa_golf wrote: »

OK , but can PE rely on the POFa if the court case is being heard in a Scottish court ?

The Scottish court would refuse to hear the case if PE are relying on POFA; of course, PE could simply claim that the RK was the driver and therefore bypass POFA.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Out of jurisdiction service would be expensive.


When I was Consul in Houston I was asked by the Court to serve papers on a local businessman. I drove across town and served the, then drove back. I billed the court for three hours at £80 an hour.

And there's me thinking a £100 PCN was a scam rip-off! :rotfl:

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

HO87 , thanks for clarification on "out-of-jurisdiction service". however if PE (or other companies) did go down this route , would POFa apply if the case was being heard under Scottish law, or could they only chase the driver of the vehicle ?

Do pay attention.

Scottish Law, or to be more precise Scots Law, has nothing to do with this situation. The parking event occurred in England and Wales and that is where PE could institute proceedings if they so wish. The Scottish courts have no jurisdiction in the matter whatsoever. The only point at which the matter could be transferred to a Scottish court would be to administer any court ordered repayment.

As explained in my earlier post, the parking event occurred in England and Wales and so POFA applies - if it took place on relevant land and PE comply with the requirements etc.

However. whether PE would enforce any liability and actually issue proceedings (in an English court) against a Scottish resident is another matter altogether. As are the complications of obtaining leave to serve outside the jurisdiction and all of the matters that flow from that. The considerable additional work to be done and the fact that the case would fall onto the multi-track (as opposed to small claims) would almost certainly rule it out on cost grounds. Few judges are going to see the sense of spending hundreds of pounds to pursue an unpaid PCN and are likely to ask if it is proportionate.

In a sense we have already been down a similar route when pre-POFA several proceedings were issued (by VCS as it happens) using a procedure known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order. An NPO, if made, obliges the defendant to disclose information (on paper) that identifies a third party. VCS's aim was to force keepers to identify the names of drivers.

At least two of their applications were refused (one at Melton Mowbray I have personal knowledge of) as being entirely disproportionate to the debt they were looking to enforce. This is likely to be the same response if PE were to chase a Scottish resident but there is always the chance that they will find a judge who will accept their arguments and the risk should not be wholly discounted.

One of the other reasons that VCS failed was because the court can only force a defendant to disclose relevant records - not the contents of their memories. And how many of us non-pedantic boring old f*rts still keep a log book of our vehicle use?

Don't confuse practicalities with legal actualities