Scotland Euro Car Parks Ltd Simple Procedure Claims received

KeithP

You need to keep in mind that the sign saying "parking for residents only" is a forbidding sign.

It is not offering a contract to park to anyone other than a resident.

Which in turn means that a visitor cannot possibly be in breach of contract as there was no contract to breach.

Fruitcake

I don't know if it is relevant to your case, but there is a thread on the forum at the moment where someone visited another person at a residential place, and the resident parked the visitor's car for them. 
Is it possible this happened on one or more occasions pertaining to your case? (Please don't answer that question)
Anything that changes the balance of probabilities regarding the driver's identity should be used where relevant.

Confused962

**Update
Still no verdict can be made after telephone conference call. Another one has been scheduled. 
During this call, I was asked to name the driver. I maintained my right not to and was told "It is my right, but there are consequences to that right." Very nerve racking. 

Fruitcake said:

I don't know if it is relevant to your case, but there is a thread on the forum at the moment where someone visited another person at a residential place, and the resident parked the visitor's car for them. 
Is it possible this happened on one or more occasions pertaining to your case? (Please don't answer that question)
Anything that changes the balance of probabilities regarding the driver's identity should be used where relevant.

ECP are pursuing the resident of the location these tickets were issued. They had given a witness statement in my Response against them.  Due to this, the court has allowed ECP time to further pursue a response from this resident to admit to be the driver. 
I was again advised by the court to come to a settlement with ECP. And if I have access to legal representation if case may come to a full evidence hearing. 

Confused962

Fruitcake said:

I don't know if it is relevant to your case, but there is a thread on the forum at the moment where someone visited another person at a residential place, and the resident parked the visitor's car for them. 
Is it possible this happened on one or more occasions pertaining to your case? (Please don't answer that question)
Anything that changes the balance of probabilities regarding the driver's identity should be used where relevant.

@F@Fruitcake
Thank you for your reply, would you have the link to that forum at all? 

Confused962

What powers would the Court have in Scotland if neither parties name the driver? 

Umkomaas

What powers would the Court have in Scotland if neither parties name the driver? 

We are not a legal-focused forum. We have far less experience of court proceedings/laws in Scotland - cases through here can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Try the LegalBeagles forum where there are numbers of legally qualified contributors providing advice and guidance. 

DoaM

The courts in Scotland apply the same basis as those in England ... they rule based on which side's "story" is more likely than not. (Balance of probabilities).

Fruitcake

Confused962 said:

Fruitcake said:

I don't know if it is relevant to your case, but there is a thread on the forum at the moment where someone visited another person at a residential place, and the resident parked the visitor's car for them. 
Is it possible this happened on one or more occasions pertaining to your case? (Please don't answer that question)
Anything that changes the balance of probabilities regarding the driver's identity should be used where relevant.

@F@Fruitcake
Thank you for your reply, would you have the link to that forum at all? 

It was over two weeks ago and I didn't bookmark that thread.

The important thing though is that it may increase the number of people who could have been the driver.

I'm a bit confused about who is being pursued by the scammers in your case, and I haven't as yet read back through. Bear in mind we get about a hundred requests a day for help on this forum, and remembering what is going on with each one is not easy.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory. What relationship to the vehicle keeper does the resident have? 
If there is more than one person named on the vehicle insurance then that reduces the probability that the keeper was the driver for every named person on the policy.
If more than one person is resident at the address, then that reduces the possibility that the keeper or one specific resident was the driver.
If there was more than one occupant in the car, it is possible that one driver got out for another occupant to park the car if this was beyond the ability of the original driver. This could be a lack of ability or restricted mobility/movement due to illness or injury.

Obviously there is no requirement in law to name the driver, but it is quite reasonable to say things like, 
The keeper (or named resident if different) was not the driver (only say that if it is true).
Or,
As this was an unremarkable event around two years ago, the driver could have been the named resident or another resident living at the same address or another person named on the insurance or another occupant of the car even if they are not named on the insurance. (I could drive your car on my insurance as could several other million people.)

In any case, primacy of contract should be in play here. If there is nothing in the resident's lease/AST about parking, permits, parking scammers, permits, having to pay a parking scammer, or court, then it matters not who was driving, so why is the scammer or the court making such a fuss about their identity?

Coupon-mad

If you can show that you do not know for sure who parked, and that more than one person had access to the car (copies of family member insurance policies giving them third party insurance on 'any other vehicle') then that makes it more likely on the BoP that you were NOT driving

e.g. 3 drivers = only a 33% chance. 

Also you should co-operate and explain WHY you are not naming the driver:

1) There is no evidence, so you can't assist and just guess;
2) There is more than one driver of this car (append evidence);
3) Even if you knew, there is no lawful presumption that a keeper was 'likely' to have been the person who parked, given the multiple drivers in the family.  Thus the BoP gives a less than 50% chance that the keeper was driving and it is the claimant's claim to prove.
4) Even if you knew, there is no obligation to name the driver to put them through this horrendous experience - why would anyone inflict this on a loved one - and
5) Even if and when keeper liability is enacted within the Transport Act, it won't be retrospective, and
6) even with 'keeper liability' enacted since 2012 in England, the POPLA/PATAS Lead Adjudicator and parking law expert barrister Henry Greenslade confirmed in the 2015 POPLA Annual Report, that outwith the POFA, there is NO lawful presumption that a keeper was driving, and no adverse inference can be drawn by a keeper who decides not to, or cannot, name the driver to a private firm:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/jsycjdw1p8kq/1BbHkInc8M97VAxJjjasLe/b6ac462cf8916a04597fa65628a53726/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf
Page 5 - Keeper liability

It is people like you who need to lead the way to show the Scottish courts how it is, even when they get 'keeper liability'.  Now I know Scottish law is different but you need to show the Judge that where there is doubt as to who was driving, if there is no keeper liability and no question of any application of the law of agency, then the keeper absolutely cannot be properly held liable nor be made to feel guilty and pressured to produce evidence (somehow) that is in fact the burden of the Claimant.