Scotland: Court orders woman to pay £24,500 in private parking charges (VCS)

Half_way

Quick question, is this being appealed at all, or is an appeal being considered?

pappa_golf

Half_way wrote: »

Quick question, is this being appealed at all, or is an appeal being considered?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72347155&postcount=12

yotmon

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Carly isn't stupid despite your accusations. Carly obtained legal aid (through a very difficult process indeed) and was well represented in court, the Sheriff agreed with this in his ruling. The case has gone on for over two years and lots has taken place to fight the fine.

But there never was a fine. She has been successfully sued for non payment of a parking charge(s).

After reading the court transcript I don't think much of a defence was put forward, especially as you mention that the case had 'gone on' for over two years.
Had any advice been sought from forums such as this one or Pepipoo once the tickets started to pile up. I know that if it had been myself, I would have been doing my homework right from the off.

HO87

Ant555 wrote: »

Interestingly here is what the judge said about the new build housing development -it seems that developers are now doing us all a favour and helping save the planet by building fewer parking spaces!!!

"the planning permission had quite deliberately stipulated conditions that would mean
that there would inevitably be insufficient parking spaces for every dwelling and certainly
not for guests and tradesmen as well. This is a “green” policy of the local authority to cut
vehicle emissions and the like"

This isn't a new policy and certainly isn't a decision made by developers. The restriction of parking spaces in such developments formed part of Government planning policy published all the way back in 2001 and known then as PPG13 (there is a Scottish equivalent). This has the effect of allowing for only 1.5 parking spaces for every 2-bed dwelling and in certain developments only 1.25 spaces for households where 2 cars tend to be a minimum.

As suggested this is a supposedly "green" policy and was intended to accompany a more "integrated" public transport plan. The intention being that people would be encouraged to use public transport. Strangely, the planning policy stuck but the integrated transport plan never really got going because the Government failed to put any money put into it. So, we are left instead with developments where the roads are choked and vehicles are to be seen parked in ever conceivable position. The so-called "green" policy has had to net effect of blighting new developments.

The constriction of parking in this way is the private parking wallahs dream come true.

Half_way wrote: »

Quick question, is this being appealed at all, or is an appeal being considered?

I believe not and even if it was being considered I can't see any ground on which it could be based.

I am slightly taken aback that a more robust defence was not advanced given the length of time this has been going on and the resources that are available.

henrik777

pappa_golf wrote: »

but the max fee is £100 , not £150 , as prescribed by the goverment , or is this not applicable in scotland and can they charge £500 per ticket? , or £1000 ,,, or ,,,,,,,,,

Prescribed by government ? Seriously ?

fisherjim

A green policy to promote using public transport, but you can't leave your car at home and use said transport.

Now that's joined up thinking!

pappa_golf

henrik777 wrote: »

Prescribed by government ? Seriously ?

well ,

£100 is prescribed as the max figure under the POFa 2012 , however this does not apply in scotland

waamo

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Carly isn't stupid despite your accusations. Carly obtained legal aid (through a very difficult process indeed) and was well represented in court, the Sheriff agreed with this in his ruling. The case has gone on for over two years and lots has taken place to fight the fine. I suggest you get your facts straight before libelling against a woman who stood up for what she believed in.

I cannot believe that you have accused her of being a plant! Instead of posting libel on here you should phone the court yourself tomorrow to get your facts straight!

Shame on you. This case could have gone either way and Carly should be praised for standing up for everyone against parking tickets, not subjected to libel.

Perhaps you would like to contribute towards Carly's money order, based on your statement that a young impressionable woman could have seen and listened to?

"DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI."

If she had proper legal advice then her lawyer should stup up the whole cost. That is provided the reports are accurate that her defence was that the charges are unenforceable.

Beavis made it clear that the charges are enforceable. What is different is that POFA doesn't apply in Scotland.

Once she admitted to being the driver it was pretty much game over. The amount of tickets she accrued was a further nail in the coffin as she couldn't claim she new nothing about them.

This is a completely different kettle of fish to someone who simply overstays in a free car park by 10 minutes or who has not got their permit on display due to changing vehicles.

The vast majority of parking cases are people who have isolated incidents and have no intention of repeatedly flouting restrictions. For those people nothing has changed.

beamerguy

I agree with waamo

This was pretty much a "one off" and STILL they are going to have to know who the driver is/was in Scotland

Everyone must now expect the propaganda of this case to be included in letters especially from the incompetent BWLegal and DRP.

The lady admitted she parked the car hence shows she was the driver

Sheriff George Way ruled: ‘[Miss Mackie] has, in my judgment, entirely misdirected herself on both the law and the contractual chain in this case.’

A more detailed explanation is in the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4375940/Driver-ignored-private-firm-s-parking-fines.html

What happened is NOT going to apply to the average motorist in Scotland or anywhere for that matter unless they are silly enough to collect some 200 tickets.

Lawyer Chris Buchanan of Glasgow firm Scullion LAW said the Dundee Sheriff Court hearing was a landmark case that set a legal precedent. He added: ‘The worry here overall is does this open a floodgate? Do [parking companies] then rely on this precedent to take more to court?

Parking Eye thought they had set a precedent over the Beavis case which resulted in parking companies piggy backing on that case

In reality as we all know such claims and propaganda has no bearing for the majority of claims as there are many other elements that will beat the PPC's.

In Scotland, it still comes down to the bottom line which is proof of who was driving. Miss Mackie proved herself she was the driver.

Sad for Miss Mackie who should now consider going bankrupt

henrik777

pappa_golf wrote: »

well ,

£100 is prescribed as the max figure under the POFa 2012 , however this does not apply in scotland

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Can you point it out for me ? (the £100, not Scotland)