PCN letters not recieved

waamo

2021hindsight wrote: »

No, no liability has been assumed. Its a definite line of defence, but my worry is that a sheriff might say that there was a 'probablity' that the keeper was driving.

With multiple tickets it's a possibility. Can you demonstrate there has been more than one driver on any occasion?

2021hindsight

Yes, 4 people had access to the car, but as you point out, in cases of multiple tickets a defence of "dont know who was driving" might just annoy the judge/sheriff and be counter productive...the thing that really takes my breath away about this, is the feeling that if the company win this case, then there is no need for them to prove that a driver/keeper recieved any letters or tickets. Court papers are delivered by hand, by two sheriffs officers up here because it is recognised that they are very important pieces of paper...yet a company can just claim to have 'sent' a letter before court action for multiple 1000s of pounds and they are given the benefit of the doubt!

waamo

An LBC isn't required in Scotland so it wouldn't make a massive difference. As Redx has asked which parking company is this.

If you can demonstrate there was a different driver on an occasion it would help. A possibility is one thing but if there was definitely two or more then sorting out what you owe and what others owe will be next to impossible

The signage will be very important. Get pictures

Coupon-mad

I think you HAVE to go for tipping the balance of probabilities that the keeper was not driving in most cases (go through them with a fine tooth comb, look at the time of day and likelihood of the keeper being elsewhere and use that thought/evidence).

As these PCNs are not all evidenced, and having seen no letters how on earth can the keeper possibly have known what was going on, or what the alleged contract was, or that this was private land, and how can a keeper be held liable (before the new law came in, you had no keeper liability).

I also think you MUST distinguish your case from the facts in Parking Eye v Beavis and from the Carly Mackie case where her BIG mistake was, she admitted to driving:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a48631a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

I feel you should seek out some free legal advice; has to be worth looking:

http://www.lawworksscotland.org/

You need to point your legal adviser to this case - below - and draw similarities with this one and COMPLETELY distance your case from the Mackie case (along with 'unclear signs' and 'notices never served' using the VCS cases in the right way against them, is your best hope of defence, IMHO).

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/06/incompetent-vcs-lose-scottish-test-case.html

Vehicle Control Services filed multiple court claims in Scotland, and eventually went all the way with one case for £700 worth of parking tickets. However, Sheriff Alastair Brown dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant was the driver in any of the parking events.

In Scotland, only the driver is liable for parking events. In England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 also makes the keeper liable if certain conditions are fulfilled.

The Sheriff ruled that VCS were incompetent, but that they had not conducted themselves inappropriately, so awarded expenses at the small claims level but did not award punitive expenses.

The defendant's solicitor, Gary McIlravey...

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/206586/dundee-man-wins-700-parking-ticket-case/

Mr McIlravey said: “Each case will turn on its own facts. There’s no underlying legal principle.”

I'd be contacting him.

as you point out, in cases of multiple tickets a defence of "dont know who was driving" might just annoy the judge/sheriff and be counter productive.

Believe me, you MUST.

2021hindsight

Many, many thanks for these, I'll contact Lawworks Scotland tomorrow. And yes, the company is VCS. I'll check out Gary McIlravey. The Mackie case is interesting to us for a number of reasons, but I'd be best keeping my theory to myself I think! I've been told that the parking companies and their lawyers go over sites like this and others, so I'm a little paranoid.

Coupon-mad

I see what you mean and without saying who it is, I will just tell you that certain firms have tried to use forum postings before.

I can't stress enough how you need a legal rep who will confidently show the Sheriff how your case is far more like the one handled by Gary McIlravey and NOT like the Mackie case where she admitted to driving, saw the signs and decided to park anyway, and she got all the letters and ignored them AFAIK, and she ran with a doomed defence that put two fingers up at any parking enforcement. That is what her Judge won't have liked!

Avoid a similar defence and steer your case wide of the Mackie case in every respect, including on signage/lack of evidence of the PCNs, all of it. You can see how your case differs from that one and how important it is to cast doubt as to keeper liability and not be scared of a Judge not liking that defence.

It is HUGELY IMPORTANT that your car had 4 insured drivers.

2021hindsight

Thank you, I'll keep you updated on progress.

2021hindsight

Hi, another query regarding my daughters PCN court claim, i have been putting together a defence and have noticed something interesting. The claim is for breach of contract, so I'm guessing that in order to accept the offer of a contract, all information must be correct and clear. The signs in the 'car park' are old and pretty poor and there are the usual omissions, (PO Box address instaed of a geographical one, no complants procedure etc) but the thing i noticed was not an omission, it was a symbol with the words ANPR/CCTV...now if I understand it correctly, that symbol is stating that the car park is managed and enforced by either ANPR or CCTV, yet the pictures we have been sent were taken by CEOs...and there is no obvious ANPR or CCTV in the area described...unless it is incredibly well hidden. So a driver in an ambiguous location, is reliant on the sign/contract for guidance as to wether they can park there or not...and if the sign/contract does not accurately reflect the situation (ie that the area is ANPR/CCTV controlled), then surely the contract is invalid...and if it is invalid, the Ts & Cs have not been breached therefore the photographs taken by the CEOs have been taken unlawfully and are not admissable as evidence. Does that sound reasonable?

Redx

It doesn't sound reasonable to me , no , it is more like clutching at straws

It's just a pictogram , but it is well known that most pictures are either by anpr cameras or CEO handheld cameras, it's done tens of thousands of times and I would say there is no issue with handheld cameras

Plus to say it is unlawful means they broke a law , which law ? you would be asked

There is nothing unlawful about taking pictures on private property , it's done daily , but there may be no pictogram for it

It's an unregulated industry , but you are looking for regulations where none exist IMHO

Nothing invalidates an invoice , it's just an invoice , which can either be claimed or thrown out, I have been coming here 7 years and never seen an invalid invoice , especially where no regulations exist

Stick to what coupon mad mentioned , those are important , like poor signage and no landowner authority , multiple drivers etc

The CRA 2015 and utccr,s cover contracts

2021hindsight

Lol...No, I'm not saying taking the pictures was unlawful, I'm suggesting that 1. Because the contract is invalid, the terms and conditions of it have not been breached. 2. And if the terms and conditions have not been breached then VCS had no authority to request the driver details from DVLA.