Help - Parking Charge from PPC in Scotland

[ledgey_81]

Hi all,

 

Thought i'd shell in an update, after a few exchanges in letters where the amount ode has went up and down like a yoyo (below) i am now getting a bit tired of writing letters telling them to desist, as they don't listen (now wishing i took the ignore approach). I have put in a claim with them for time spent replying to they're barrage of letters, in a previous letter i added a little contract of my own.

 

First letter (not including the original ticket) i'm due £85, second letter saying appeal unsuccessful (note in the appeal process they state a having a friend park the car for you is not accepted, well technically it should be) now due £85 which will increase ONCE legal procedings have begun, third stating the "landmark" case in scotland and also adding a new one at paisley sheriff court (SC/160-08) and demanding £60 or the file will be passed to the sheriffs officers, fourth letter from a debt collection agency saying final reminder for £135 (oh i thought it didnt go up until legal proceedings have begun) and lastly a notice of legal proceedings for £135 form DCA (still legal proceedings haven't begun, wait a minute I thought CPS were going to walk up to scotland themselves and hand it over to a sheriff officer). I rang the DCA, just for a laugh, and they are not careful in any way as to how they talk to you, they state that "my car was parked illegally" and when telling them that they don't know whom they are claiming money from (as they do not know the driver) they said "as owner i am legally liable for this". They also state i will be liable for court fees when it is taken to court, now on the sheriff court advisor CAB's website it says that any claim less than £200 will not recieve legal cost.

 

I am meeting with my legal department at my university to get some advice for when they will definately, 100%, guaranteed, take me to court. Honestly this time they are doing it. They mean it. Sometimes i prefer honest psychopathic maniacs at least when they say "I'm going to tear heart out with my sleave" i can start considering my options.

 

Cheers

[rory32]

From the Scottish Courts small claims guideance notes:

 

4.23 Expenses

At the end of the case, if the court makes an award of expenses, the amount to be awarded may be determined by the sheriff there and then. Alternatively the amount is calculated by the clerk of court (sheriff clerk), either at the time or on a later date.

If the case is continued for a hearing on expenses, the successful party will need to produce an account of their expenses and send a copy of it to the other party, before the sheriff clerk hears their claim for expenses. The account must be lodged with the sheriff clerk, and copied to the other party, at least seven days before the date of any hearing fixed to consider the question of expenses.

Any receipts or vouchers for expense incurred which support the claim should be attached to the account.

As a general rule, court expenses are awarded to the party who succeeds in the claim. These expenses must then be paid by the unsuccessful party.

There is normally a limit on the amount of expenses which can be awarded.

If the value of the claim is £200 or less there will normally be no award of expenses.

If the value is between £200 and £1500, the maximum amount of expenses which can normally be awarded by the court to the successful party is £150.

If the value is between £1500 and £3000, the maximum amount of expenses which can normally be awarded by the court to the successful party is 10% of the value of the claim.

If an award of expenses is made, any court fees paid may be included in the award, as long as the total amount of expenses and fees do not exceed the maximum limits mentioned above.

[ledgey_81]

Yeah that's the fella, I am assuming that's why they put the amount up £50, so that they don't loose to much going to court. I think in that guide it says that the cost of taking a claim to court is ~£60 and the DCA get 10% (£13.50) according to their website.

 

The other thing i was thinking, there was a real landmark ruling in scotland saying that companies couldn't clamp cars on private land as it was seen as tampering with another man's possesion. Surley affixing a charge to my winscreen underneath the wiper would mean they tamperred with my car.

 

I'll see what the legal boffins at uni have to say about it all. I know it won't make the court, but I am going to assume it will so i am fully prepaired for it.

[rory32]

n Scotland, in 1992 wheel-clamping on private land was banned overnight, as it was declared to be extortion and theft (Black v Carmichael).

 

Surley affixing a charge to my winscreen underneath the wiper would mean they tamperred with my car.

It's not really the same thing. Do make sure that you are also aware of University of Edinburgh -v- Daniel Onifade [2005 S.L.T (Sh Ct) 63], heard before Sheriff Principal Iain Macphail QC THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH v. DANIEL ONIFADE, 24 December 2004, Sheriff Principal I.D. Macphail, Q.C.

[ledgey_81]

Yeah i've read that, but i dont see how that can be used as an example in my case. CPS use it in an example in one of the letters they sent me. And if thats what they are going to use as their case with me, then i could probably send my 6 year old nephew to defend me.

 

Could these charges not be counted as extorsion and theft, as surely before the Black v Carmichael case, private land owners would have probably had warning signs in place. So it could have been argued that the drivers entered a contract where their car would be clamped and it would cost them money to get released. Although now its not the car its your peace of mind, financial status that are being taken away (or threatened).

[lamma]

I hope you recorded the calls with the DCA

[scaniaman]

Well now then, How does this case in Paisley Court affect our theory that PPC invoices are worthless? Sounds like another Onifade saga. Perhaps a victory for Combined Parking unless defendant appeals.

Wonder who his hot shot lawyer was? Watch out ledgey81!

Have not seen the full Court report, but wonder on what basis this case even got to court.

[rory32]

Well now then, How does this case in Paisley Court affect our theory that PPC invoices are worthless?

Unless it was a Sheriff Principals ruling then the relevance is none.

[ledgey_81]

Their hot shot lawyer have sent me a letter now demanding payment of £135. For the first time in this case, I have been asked to reveal the identity of the driver on this occassion, if I don't the sheriff will make a ruling besed on the balance of probabilities that as I own the car there is a high probability that I parked the car.

 

I am obviously not going to reveal the identity of the driver for free, as this is now very valuable information to the PPC.

 

Nothing against sheriff's, but i'm pretty sure they aren't that statistically minded and may accept simple probabilities. But the statistics involved in making such a decision should be more complex. I.e driver history should be a factor. I have been driving for 10 years I have had 2 parking tickets previously (1 was issued in error so was dropped and the other was a stupid overstay [down to me getting the time wrong]) i have no speeding charges against my name, 1 accident that wasn't my fault. So all things considered i am a careful considerate driver therefore, the probability of me parking my car somewhere that would be inconsiderate is very small (so small it would be deemed there is a highly significant chance that i didn't park the car in this manner p

 

So if the sheriff wants to "balance probabilities" in my case he would have to rule opposite to a case where a person collects parking tickets like stamps and has a very poor driving record. You can't flip a coin and come up heads 100% of the time, that's cheating the probabilities.

Edited February 2, 2009 by ledgey_81

[My Real Name]

Their hot shot lawyer have sent me a letter now demanding payment of £135. For the first time in this case, I have been asked to reveal the identity of the driver on this occassion, if I don't the sheriff will make a ruling besed on the balance of probabilities that as I own the car there is a high probability that I parked the car.

 

I am obviously not going to reveal the identity of the driver for free, as this is now very valuable information to the PPC.

 

Nothing against sheriff's, but i'm pretty sure they aren't that statistically minded and may accept simple probabilities. But the statistics involved in making such a decision should be more complex. I.e driver history should be a factor. I have been driving for 10 years I have had 2 parking tickets previously (1 was issued in error so was dropped and the other was a stupid overstay [down to me getting the time wrong]) i have no speeding charges against my name, 1 accident that wasn't my fault. So all things considered i am a careful considerate driver therefore, the probability of me parking my car somewhere that would be inconsiderate is very small (so small it would be deemed there is a highly significant chance that i didn't park the car in this manner p

 

So if the sheriff wants to "balance probabilities" in my case he would have to rule opposite to a case where a person collects parking tickets like stamps and has a very poor driving record. You can't flip a coin and come up heads 100% of the time, that's cheating the probabilities.

The sheriff would only make such a ruling if you declined to inform the sheriff of the identity of the driver.

 

If you were the driver, you would inform the sheriff of that fact. If you were not, you would inform the sheriff that you were not, and you might inform them who the driver was (perhaps another poster might inform you as to whether you are obliged to name the driver, should a sheriff direct you to do so).

 

You are under no obligation to inform the Hot Shot Lawyer™ as to the identity of the driver.

 

In any case, the defence that the charges amount to unlawful penalties would still apply.

[scaniaman]

LAGUNA:- If you are still watching this forum, can you tell us how your MSP is getting on with his parliamentry question. In light of this other case in Paisley Court, we need to get some answers rather quickly on how parliament views PPC's.

Can anyone out there advise how we can get details of Paisley case, and how sheriff was able to find in favour of PPC's.

[Wonder who]

Their hot shot lawyer have sent me a letter now demanding payment of £135.

 

Hot shot lawyer? Perky? Now that would be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act. Buffoon, amateur loser wannabe lawyer perhaps. As for this made up presumption that you were the driver because you are the registered keeper, it is a shedload of drivel, as per usual with Perky. He just makes it up as he goes along and we all snigger behind his back. Including the PPCs believe me. Don't worry Ledgey with a moron like this on the other side you do not have much to worry about. Do not say too much on here - about the only chance old dumbo Perky has is if you reveal something he can use to his advantage.

[ledgey_81]

According to CPS, it was because god has issued them with a quest to rid the world of freedom. I seen a sign on a flower last week, i read it with a magnifying glass, it said that any bee taking the nectar from the flower has entered into a contract etc

[ledgey_81]

Thanks wonder, I don't think I have revealed anything might be incrimatory. Although this site has been helpful for advise, I would never take it as written in stone and therefore would not use it as my defence, as the poor bugger in paisley tried.

[scaniaman]

VIP. Just had e-mail from Jamie Hepburn, MSP, who raised a parliamentry question about PPC's. A reply came from Kenny MacAskill MSP on Tues. 15th July 2008. As you would expect from a Govt. minister, the reply said a lot but failed to tell anything of consequence. The last line states "In disputed cases, legal advice should be sought: the basis for imposing or purporting to impose any sort of charge will differ according to the specific situation under consideration."

The question was raised under number S3W-14407. for anyone who can fish this info out.

So, Where the Hellen b Merry does this leave us?

Without knowing all the story it is difficult to make further comment, but on what has been said, if it were me, i would appeal the sheriff's decision!!!

Come on Guys & Gals, there is bound to be someone out there that knows how to get the court papers so that we can see on what grounds this Paisley case even got to court.

THIS IS THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE.

Edited February 3, 2009 by scaniaman
dipit