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

DoaM

I think it's a chain link from POFA through AOS code of practice to £100. POFA states the PPC must follow the AOS CoP; the CoP states the maximum value is £100.

@post #40 ... do Sheriff's Court rulings set precedents?

Herzlos

But that signage isn't a contract to park due to being forbidding "No parking at any time.". So it'd be a trespass case, which doesn't apply in Scotland as I understand it.

This should have been an easy win with some proper research, though it does provide a supposed justification as to why parking companies exist in the first place - 200 parking invoices.

henrik777

DoaM wrote: »

I think it's a chain link from POFA through AOS code of practice to £100. POFA states the PPC must follow the AOS CoP; the CoP states the maximum value is £100.

@post #40 ... do Sheriff's Court rulings set precedents?

There is no requirement within PoFA for code of practice compliance or otherwise, that i can see.

The code of practice does state £100. The code of practice isn't regulated as we know. If they increase it nobody will stop them.

The Sheriff court is the court of 1st instance. It does not set precedence, as is common with such courts in any country i'm aware of.

yotmon

Herzlos wrote: »

But that signage isn't a contract to park due to being forbidding "No parking at any time.". So it'd be a trespass case, which doesn't apply in Scotland as I understand it.

This should have been an easy win with some proper research, though it does provide a supposed justification as to why parking companies exist in the first place - 200 parking invoices.

If the above can be proven as correct, then maybe it could be used as an appeal point - surely the courts have the responsibility to ensure that the 'right reason' to sue is heard before them. If it could be proven that VCS could never have formed a contract with the defender then could the case be reheard. (Just thinking outloud).

The_Deep

Looking at the photographs, it seems that this is a most anti social place to park, contrary to the wishes of residents, managing agents, and the head-lease holder. Such deliberated defiance deserves sanction imo.

If she parked leaving pedestrian access between the garage door and her car, then surely she would be parking over DYLs and restricting the width of the road: if she parked hard against the garage door she would be obstructing pedestrian access.

In any event, she had no right to park on the estate, she was neither a tenant or a leaseholder. Had she parked thusly on one of my properties, someone might have let her tyres down.

henrik777

Herzlos wrote: »

But that signage isn't a contract to park due to being forbidding "No parking at any time.". So it'd be a trespass case, which doesn't apply in Scotland as I understand it.

This should have been an easy win with some proper research, though it does provide a supposed justification as to why parking companies exist in the first place - 200 parking invoices.

If it wasn't argued then most judges wouldn't think about it.

There are trespass laws in Scotland, contrary to a public opinion which is probably fuelled by the right to roam. Whether they'd apply here ?

DoaM

henrik777 wrote: »

The Sheriff court is the court of 1st instance. It does not set precedence, as is common with such courts in any country i'm aware of.

I didn't think so ... that's why I was calling out the terminology used in post #40.

System

There are trespass laws in Scotland, contrary to a public opinion which is probably fuelled by the right to roam. Whether they'd apply here ?

Think you have to be moving in order to claim the right to roam.

henrik777

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Think you have to be moving in order to claim the right to roam.

I probably worded that badly but i meant that public opinion that there were no trespass laws was fuelled by the right to roam, not that parking had anything to do with the right to roam.

Hasbeen

Do not usually post on here, but read this in the papers today and was really surprised at outcome!

As I and family members in the past on reading advice on here to TOTALLY ignore as per "Scotland" have heard no more.

It does appear that a "poor" defence by her and solicitor was submitted? and that she seemingly let them know she was the driver? We do not have POFA

Question I am asking is If I did not state driver and the amount££££ was such would they try and do the same? as this case will now have a knock on effect on drivers in Scotland who would now be scared to ignore these invoices?