Help - Parking Charge from PPC in Scotland

[ledgey_81]

Hi,

 

My car got a ticket from Combined Parking Solutions, when parking in a private residential car park. It was night when it was parked there, so the driver wouldnt have been able to see the warning signs. So i'm not going to pay it.

 

I just need advice as i haven't seen any posts of people experiencing these vile wretched companies in scotland. And i was wandering if there was anyone out there that does know more on this subject and can suggest how i play this. Can i use similar remarks as mentioned previously on other posts. Deny the claim as they charge is towards the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper. Or is there a fancier way where i can deny the claim as the act they quote has no relevance in scotland (or does it have more power).

 

I spoke to pete jones, got his email off his great post, but he was not confident in giving me the advice as it would fall under scots law. Where the law of contracts are slightly different. However, there is also the fact that this company is based in England and their lawyers will also not have any clue as to how scots law is applied in these matters.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Craig

 

ps I also had a little idea for the future, how about a red sticker that can be stuck on your windscreen informing whoever wishes to put a ticket on your car enters themselves or the company they represent has entered into a contract whereby if they are not acting on behalf of the police or the local authority they are in breach of contract. Thi breach will result in a fine of £135 (£85 if paid for within 14 days). FAILURE TO PAY WILL RESULT IN SUMMONS TO THE SHERIFF/COUNTY COURT. The company will get photo's sent to them by their "agents" proving they are in a contract.

[Barnsley Boy]

Well if Pete Jones is not confident to state a view then it is a bit presumtious for the rest of us to comment. PJ is held in very esteem here for very good reasons. His paper: Private Parking Companies - a guide to an effective defence, has helped innumerable people to understand their rights and stand up to the [problematic].

 

There have been lots of postings from Scotland, the tactics used to deter the [problematic] seem very much the same. Although contract law is different, it doesn't seem to be that different. There is still the concept of privity of contract, penalty clauses are still deemed unenforceable, there are Scottish equivalants to England & Wales unfair contract terms contract terms legislation. Scotland is obviously a more civilised country than England in that you don't allow private companies to clamp. It just needs a Scottish PJ to pull it all together - any takers?

 

I would think that the template letters can still be used - "take it up with the Driver etc". They are short, sweet, and do not mention specific legislation.

 

BTW Nice to hear that it is Combined Parking Solutions - This crowd are based in Wolverhampton. What are the chances of one of them coming up all that way just to lose a case at a Sheriff's Court in Scotland.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/119802-private-parking-tickets-template.html

[ledgey_81]

Yes pj certainly desserves his high regarded reputation he is very eager to help which is admirable in this day and age. He suggested that they would not come up to the sheriff courts am i right in assuming that an english solicitor can't act in an official cappacity in scotland? It would be great if there was a Scottish PJ.

 

Thanks

 

Craig

[scaniaman]

Hello fellow victims, I received a parking ticket in Dundee's Old Mill Complex, where I had popped into the cafe for a quick snack. The company who are pursuing me are called Central Ticketing. Their HQ is in Birmingham, but I beleive they have an office in Edinburgh. I have read all these websites about this problem, and the more I read, the more confused I get. Tried to email PJ but no reply so far. Have tried the three most recommended courses of action, with disasterous results.

1.Phoned police who said they would send someone out to get all details and proceed on the basis of the Administration of Justice Act, Sec40. I while later they phoned back saying that although this act is relevant in Scotland, Section 40 does not apply here. I find this VERY difficult to beleive. Can anyone verify this???

2.Contacted Trading Standards who didn't want to know--they couldn't do anything about this firm??? but did say that the complaint would be forwarded to OFT. What response are you guys getting from TS???

3.Visited CAB. They were completely out of their depth here and said they would ask around within the organisation and get back to me. They printed out info from their own site saying that in Scotland, harassment of debtors is not a specific crime. So where do I go from here??

In the meantime, Central Ticketing have sent a final demand saying that if I don't pay up before 12th May, they will take out a decree against me.

Please, any advice would be most welcome.

[scaniaman]

In reply to Ledgey81, they would employ a Scottish (Local)lawyer to act for them up here. They are chasing me for£85, but it costs£44 to iniciate court action.

More help please--I have lost thread on main site about the crime of Malicious Communications Act & also what to do if Sheriff officers/debt collectors call at home. Please guide to relevant threads. Thank you.

[ScottishDriver1]

I too have a ticket from central ticketing for parking in the old mill complex dundee. I have until 10th May to pay it at the reduced rate of £60. I'm not sure what to do however, I am tempted to wait until they write to me and ask if they have evidence of who was driving the car.

[scottish_mark]

The legal references for private parking in Scotland are clearly defined following the case of University of Edinburgh and Daniel Onifade.

 

Parking tickets on private land is perfectly legal and the Sheriff Principal who heard the appeal is/was a very well respected Sheriff Principal and now sits on the Scottish equiv of the High Court, he writes for various legal authors.

 

The case above is binding on the lower courts.

 

Just google on the parties names and many sites have the judgement including the scotcourts site.

[Barnsley Boy]

This case is hardly typical - this was a repeat "offender" - some 29 times in fact. The repetition is mentioned throughout the judgement.

 

The contract was acknowledged also, as were the contracting parties. The crux of the case was about the use of the word "fine" and the level of charge - £30 plays £10.

 

I don't think that a one off incident at your local aldi or tesco would be anything like covered by this case.

 

Was there a contract?

Who was it with?

£85 plays £nil

[scottish_mark]

With respect Barnsley Boy the appeal stated that the driver in this case accepted the conditions and did create a contract by parking and therefore accepted the "fine", In Scotland we are the same as England in relation to penalties thus the debate over the use of the word "fine"

 

The fact he continued to park was in defiance and in essence stating the terms on display were not legal, this turned out to be misguided and even if he had 1 ticket then it would be the same.

 

If the case would have proceeded this high for 1 ticket is questionable. But it does not change the findings (this was an appeal by Daniel so the original sherrif also found against him)

[rory32]

The legal references for private parking in Scotland are clearly defined following the case of University of Edinburgh and Daniel Onifade.

 

Parking tickets on private land is perfectly legal

Well the circumstances here regarding ledgey 81 are a little different than the case you quote to put it mildly. In the case of The University of Edinburgh against Daniel Onifade "on numerous occasions between 7 June 2001 and March 2004 the defender parked a vehicle on property belonging to the pursuers although he was not the holder of a parking permit. On each occasion there was displayed on the property a notice in the following terms:

 

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

PRIVATE PROPERTY.

PARKING BY PERMIT ONLY

- - -

PERSONS PARKING WITHOUT

A PERMIT WILL BE LIABLE

TO A FINE OF £30 PER DAY

- - -

PARKING REGULATIONS APPLY

VEHICLES ARE PARKED

AT OWNERS RISK

The defender was aware of the terms of the notice."

[lamma]

indeed - not to mention the badly worded appeal. Anyone who reads the case (thanks for pointing it out Mark) can see that it lacks applicability - so thats one more down.

 

If this was as portrayed by mark then every PPC invoice issued in scotland would go to court with a sure fire win for the PPC.

But they don't do they... QED.

[scottish_mark]

Rory32, you are correct the signage must be clear as no person can agree to something they did not see if a sign was so clear they ought to see it.

 

For the record Daniel Onifade is also a very highly respected lawyer so I don't agree it was a badly worded appeal.

[lamma]

the bench sure thought it was badly worded !! - and went to some length of say so and then to substitute the questions. You can't have it both ways mark.

'Ought' to see it means nothing - there is sufficient well known case law about that.

 

 

How many slam dunks wins in scottish courts for scottish PPCs based on this judgement... QED still !!

[scottish_mark]

Where did they state it was badly worded ?

[lamma]

Mark, as usual the pro PPC quoting of case law fails to impress.

 

"What the Summary Cause Rules 2002 require, however, is that the stated case should contain 'appropriate questions of law' (rule 25.1(3)(b)). That means, in my view, that the questions stated must be appropriate to 'the point [or points] of law upon which the appeal is to proceed' which have been specified by the appellant in his note of appeal, as required by rule 25.1(1)(b). The questions should accordingly be so stated as to require the Court's opinion on these points. I shall therefore decline to answer the question stated and substitute two other questions which raise the issues specified:"

 

SO how many slam dunks wins in scottish courts for scottish PPCs based on this judgement... zip

QED still !! (still).

Demonstrated very simply and not sidetracked.

-------------------------

the number of pro PPC posts on this board is amazing - are we getting so many hits on google that we are affecting their revenue ?

[scaniaman]

Hi Scottish driver. In my mind there are three positive courses of action open to you, depending on how much "Balls" you have.

1.Write CT and tell them that they should address their claim to the driver of the vehicle, when this alleged parking offence took place. (law is that driver is responsible, not owner/registered keeper). They got your name and address from DLVC, which states that you are registered keeper. Under no circumstances admit you were driver. It is up to them to prove who driverwas.

2.Get in touch with Evening Tele and ask them to do article on this problem. (i am about to do this, and two or more people would add credence to complaint)

3.Contact Dorothy Thomson of Old Mill Cafe and ask her for contact details of all her customers who have been ticketed. I believe her daughter was one!! I have asked her to get all victims to phone me, in order to get a united front to fight this injustice.

[scaniaman]

Ledgay81. In regard to PJ, be careful what you wish for, as you may not like what you get!!!!!

[scaniaman]

Reply to scottish mark. This sheriff guy must be really something, when everyone knows that these parking tickets are not enforcable in law as no crime has been committed. If you know differently, please reply with relevant legislation. Our local police solicitor is not aware of this law!!

Much revered as this sheriff apears to be, they are not infalable, and occasionally get bogged down in the law as to forget the practicalities of the matter to hand. I'll take my chances with him anyday in court on any subject relating to motor vehicles, especially HGV's. I have had several charges against me dropped, as I have been able to baffle them with technicalities relating to vehicles.

[rory32]

Reply to scottish mark. This sheriff guy must be really something, when everyone knows that these parking tickets are not enforcable in law as no crime has been committed.

This sheriff guy was a sheriff principal - you do understand the difference, right? Appeals in civil cases go first to the Sheriff Principal, or the Court of Session, and then the House of Lords. I would suggest you at least read the case refered to if you wish to make such sweeping remarks. The case is not relevant to the circumstances of the OP. Nevertheless it is a sheriff principals ruling.

[scottish_mark]

Lamma, I am neither pro or anti ppc, there seemed to be many people asking questions specific to Scotland to which no one knew the legal answers to which I posted so it would be clearer and they would have facts in order to answer their questions.

If by posting a quoted case makes a person pro something, then this site has a strange way of looking at things.

 

Rory, I agree this case is different as the original poster claims to have parked at night and did not see signs, I would suspect if he parked in daylight next to a sign the case would be of more relevance.

[scottish_mark]

lamma, I am not sure which website you are reading the case from but you have posted half a paragraph in relation to the question asked by the original sheriff and not the defendant or claimant.

 

The sheriff stated a case that the sheriff principal considered to be too broad and as a result the sheriff principal substituted it with 2 more specific questions.

 

If you have access to the westlaw library then you will find 3 pages in relation to the case and looking at the scotscourt site the FULL paragraph is under [3].

[lamma]

from the scotcourts site just as you recommended - and the number 1 hit on google. stunned that you could not find it - or am I ?

THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH v. DANIEL ONIFADE, 24 December 2004, Sheriff Principal I.D. Macphail, Q.C.

 

so where are all these slam dunks for PPCs in scotland based on this case ?

QED still (still) ((and still)).

 

End of.

[scottish_mark]

I can't understand this, I place a link to a case that no one seemed to know about, to answer a question and all certain members can do is pick arguments - I will not bother in future, I have come across a similar case that was dedlt with by the court of session but I can do without the nit picking.

Consumer Action Group, more like Consumer Argument Group.

[lamma]

"The legal references for private parking in Scotland are clearly defined following the case of University of Edinburgh and Daniel Onifade."

is quite a statement and clearly misleading IMV - and that of others here. Correcting this is not nitpicking. Sorry you think it is.

 

Still no list of scottish slam dunk wins for PPCs based on this referenced case (singular)...

[battyboomboom]

I can't understand this, I place a link to a case that no one seemed to know about, to answer a question and all certain members can do is pick arguments - I will not bother in future, I have come across a similar case that was dedlt with by the court of session but I can do without the nit picking.

Consumer Action Group, more like Consumer Argument Group.

 

I knew about the case, and knew about the fact that this guy was a repeat offender, and that the Uni was not trying to extort money out of him by fraudulent means, which is what most PPCs do.

 

Nit picking? Well if you go in the cream when we ask a few questions and bring up a few points then that's your perogative. I mean, if everyone on here (and Pepipoo) didn't take any ACTION or FIGHTBACK when presented with what is in your view a very open and shut case for the PPCs then what would be the point?

 

And if you can't see what lamma is on about, then get a grip - you come on and say

Parking tickets on private land is perfectly legal

yet provide us with a case which does not even have a parking ticket involved, and haven't yet shown us wins in the lower courts by PPCs in Scotland - now I wonder why that is?