Horizon parking - small claims court

DD94

Hi all,

I received papers from my local sheriff court detailing that horizon parking are suing me for 6 unpaid tickets from may/June 2016 for a total of £660. The car park is a pay and display and the penalties are for not displaying a paid ticket. To be honest I know for a fact I have way more than 6 of these. However I have never ever received a letter from horizon chasing for the money or detailing why I owe them money - only ever tickets attached to the window. I did receive a debt collection letter some time last year - maybe July/august chasing the money for 6 tickets which was ignored.

Since I know I have way more than 6 outstanding I am tempted to contact the lawyers for horizon and offer to settle out of court if I can get in writing I cannot be chased for any unpaid tickets up to and include the date I received the court papers.

I am confused as to why they would try and take this to court because 1) they are going for 6 unpaid tickets when I have way more and 2) they have never followed any of the tickets on the window with a letter?

This is relating to fines in Scotland.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Daniel

Half_way

haven't got time to go into detail, but under no circumstance should you take a guess as to who the driver could have been on those occasions.
If, like me, it could be friends/relatives/colleagues and so on, and if, like me, you wont have kept an accurate log on who was driving what, where and when.

Redx

the important thing here is if the PPC or the solicitors know who was actually driving the vehicle ?

if they dont , if you are the KEEPER and have never mentioned who was driving , keep it that way, because there is no POFA2012 in Scotland and so the RK or KEEPER cannot be held liable

if the driver has been admitted or identified, then its no wonder a court claim has been issued given the recent win in Scotland against somebody else who did admit they were the driver in the mistaken belief that they were bulletproof in Scotland

a driver has ALWAYS been deemed to be liable for their own actions

it is their job to prove their case against the person they have issued the court papers to, so if they fail on legal grounds then you would win , so this is why it is important not to identify the driver and is why you could win the case , on technicalities

DD94

So far there has been zero correspondence between myself and the parking company, it's solicitors or and other parties. Who was driving on those days is a mystery to myself and them

Redx

DD94 wrote: »

So far there has been zero correspondence between myself and the parking company, it's solicitors or and other parties. Who was driving on those days is a mystery to myself and them

in which case why would you make any offer at all seeing as there is no keeper liability in scotland ? (I assume you are the keeper ? , ie:- registered keeper at the dvla ?)

waamo

Can you demonstrate you weren't driving? If you can it kills it dead. In Scotland only the driver can be held responsible. If you can show it wasn't you on just one occasion then this claim is dead in the water.

DD94

It's a fair point and why I've came here for help. Is my defence really that simple? I've seen one case where the judge deemed it was the keepers job to prove they were not driving as opposed to the parking firm proving they were. Also due to the number of outstanding tickets I still have even if this one goes my way they could keep bringing more?

DD94

Yes I am the registered keeper but no I can not actually prove I was not driving on any of those days

Coupon-mad

I would ask for the BMPA advice on this one:

http://www.bmpa.eu/crt_contact.html

It's free and it's on point.

I would not make an offer, just defend it as keeper, saying there is no 'keeper liability' in Scotland, more than one family member would have been driving on each occasion and it remains the claimant's burden to show the person being pursued is actually liable in law. No assumption can be made. They obviously know there are more PCNs against that vehicle and are trying to flush out the driver and someone who ''knows there are other PCNs''. Why would the keeper know there were lots of PCNs if the keeper didn't receive letters? Hence why I caution against saying anything about any other PCNs.

You need to be careful not to fall the way of the Mackie case, although she admitted who was driving and the defence (although helped by Legal aid I think) stupidly just seems to have relied upon: ''ahem, these are unenforceable in Scotland'':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parking-charge-scotland-24000-ignoring-notices-warning-a7665346.html

BTW, have you forgotten to update an address for your V5 when you moved? Are all letters going to an old address until that single debt letter and court claim? You need the DVLA to have the right address for each vehicle/V5, not just your driving licence, or you can get fined by them too.

Finally - why the heck is someone using your car to ''bilk'' (fly park without paying, loads of times)? Sorry to say, if that has been happening then it's idiots like that who actually cause PPCs to exist and who cause stupid court decisions like the Mackie case to take place.

Redx

DD94 wrote: »

It's a fair point and why I've came here for help. Is my defence really that simple? I've seen one case where the judge deemed it was the keepers job to prove they were not driving as opposed to the parking firm proving they were. Also due to the number of outstanding tickets I still have even if this one goes my way they could keep bringing more?

EXCEL have tried this tactic with LAMILAD and he has learned a lot in the last 12 months and beaten them every time , and we DO have POFA2012 , which excel failed

I doubt that HORIZON managed to pass any test under POFA2012 even though it doesnt apply to you , so yes it would be that simple, although I dont think its a good idea to rely on that single argument alone

no locus standii would be at least one other argument in your defence, plus maybe a few more , as well as no keeper liability

DD94

Good point - nah I've lived at the same address since I was born so no risk of that!