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

waamo

Hasbeen wrote: »

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?

Posts 39 and 40 pretty much cover it. If the PPC don't know who was driving then nothing has changed. This is a fairly unique case in which the person admitted being the driver. They also accrued a massive amount of tickets.

Some PPCs will indeed chance their arm in Scotland, it's a way of seeing if people will crumble and pay often. I can't recall of any case in Scotland being lost by a motorist when they haven't admitted to being the driver.

This isn't the first case of its kind either. Combined Parking Solutions won a £5k case back in 2008. Since then little has changed still. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-driver-hit-with-5k-parking-1001648#u8pbs55jYKtGgaMR.97

Mike172

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And that's the idea behind it! Nothing has changed.

You don't need a lawyer nor to pay for help. The person in question put in a weak defence, for whatever reason, and was worth going after for £24500 (if she was for real). And worth the news story if she was a stooge.

See what it's made you do? Panic unnecessarily. That's what makes me smell a rat - it would be worth their while getting a trophy case by hook or by crook. Doesn't mean the advice has changed, nor does it set a precedent - get a grip.

The 'victim' (if she was truly a victim) mucked up by not defending for whatever reason. For that sum of money she should have paid a solicitor, but you don't need to.

You haven't even stated the proper name of the company and if you mean just 'Euro Car Parks' then your worry is completely misguided!

The same thing happend with the Chip shop owner no? Ive not looked but I bet its all over the PPC sites now as a landmark game changing case that proves their tickets are 100% enforceable and that everyone should now pay up as fighting tickets is futile.

I joke about it now but before I defeated that first ticket of mine I was skeptical and its a little scary going up against them when you get letters through the door with bold red font.

System

It does appear that a "poor" defence by her and solicitor was submitted?

Nothing wrong with the solicitor if you happen to check. The issue comes down to believing everything you read on forums like this as gospel.

You should read the Sheriff's reasoning - it's available from the VCS website - as it is clear and logical based on the sorry behaviour of the OP.

The publicity will fuel a few more trips to the Caribbean for Mr SRS but it doesn't change the underlying law. In fact, it helpfully clarifies it for those that want to read the judgment.

DoaM

The judgment is also linked earlier in this thread.

And as mentioned earlier in the thread ... throughout the judgment it talks about rights to park if displaying a permit, but no rights if not. Therefore no contractual situation whatsoever ... the defendant and solicitor seem to have missed a huge trick there. The below Finds In Fact And Law is legally wrong - no they didn't!

7. The signs created a contractual offer that the parking vehicle accepted by thereafter parking on the property. The defender was aware of the parking restrictions and the terms of the pursuers signs. The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion.

Not that I'm condoning what happened, but if I was in such a situation and had a child visiting and staying from time-to-time, I'd expect them to be able to park their vehicle reasonably close to where I lived. It sounds as if the tenant could have organised a permit for the daughter but chose not to.

nigelbb

pappa_golf wrote: »

well ,

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

You are spouting utter nonsense again. Get you facts right. POFA does not state any maximum private parking 'fine'.

nigelbb

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?

More nonsense from someone who clearly hasn't read POFA which says nothing about any AOS or COP.

Lamilad

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

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

Facts as in knowing the difference between a "fine" and a privately issued invoice?

a woman who stood up for what she believed in.

So what does that say about her? Some people believe the stuff in the bible about 'an eye for an eye', 'a tooth for a tooth' etc... Should they act on their 'beliefs' then take their chances in court?

I cannot believe that you have accused her of being a plant!

Why not? If you knew anything about these private parking companies and the nefarious tactics they employ you would realise there are no depths too low for them to stoop. If you knew what they were capable of you would not struggle to "believe" this statement.

you should phone the court yourself tomorrow to get your facts straight!

What good would that do? All the court could do is confirm that the case took place, not whether or not she was a stooge.... Second time you talked about 'getting facts straight' without getting your facts straight

Shame on you. This case could have gone either way

Really? Based on the defence put forward how could it possible have gone against the claimant? Please explain.

and Carly should be praised for standing up for everyone against parking tickets

Yeah, she's a real inspiration to all of us... If I come across anyone else who's just fed up of that annoying £24500 weighing them down then I'll point them in her direction

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."

I'm pretty sure that doesn't say 'ignore then park there another 200 times'

Umkomaas

Classic dismantling Lami. . You should have lay repped for her (are they allowed north of the border?).

Fruitcake

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."[/QUOTE]

But she didn't follow that advice as far as I can tell, and that was her downfall. If the scammers didn't know the identity of the driver there was nothing they could do. By sticking her head above the parapet and identifying herself as the driver she made herself a target, then compounded that error by not submitting a valid defence.

Coupon-mad

I am not convinced (and there is no evidence) that the poster Ryandavis1959 is anything to do with the victim. Just reads like a rant to me - what a coincidence that they have rocked up on a forum accusing me of 'libel' (ho hum) which of course if not the case at all. I am disappointed that this victim lost with a badly-conceived defence.

As you say, Fruitcake, she didn't follow our advice:

- we would have said the keeper should have defended it

- we would have said the driver should not have been identified

- we would not have suggested to defend by saying the charge was 'unenforceable'

- bargepole has summarised where the defence was flawed.

- early on, if a newbie says they are collecting PCNs like confetti, we tell people to STOP parking there as our first advice.

The same thing happened with the Chip shop owner no?

No. This is nothing like that case, was fought well (the Supreme Court moved the penalty spot and the goalposts). Barry Beavis was a genuine patron, held up by a retailer, Staples, who subsequently wanted PE to cancel the PCN.