Scottish Law - Parking on Private Land

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Update which I'll quickly paraphrase for now due to time contraints ...

 

Initially it waffles about DPA and how it excempts non disclosure provision to anybody who can demonstarte "reasonable cause" to have RK info

 

Requests from PPC's are considered reasonable cause. Unauthorised parking on private land is a problem landowners experience and providing this info is necessary to enfore their rights to their property. Otherwise they could be forced to wheeelclamp or seize 'offending' vehicles.

 

I am able to confirm DVLA received a request from PPC etc via electronic link etc

 

After further investigation with the PPC the vehicle was issued a PCN ... etc see attached photograph (Photo shows the tail end [rear drivers side wheel] of the Registered Keepers Vehicle on a double yellow line on the private land in question it would appear which is timestamped)

 

Technological advances viz a viz ANPR means PPC's can issue directly through the post etc

 

New procedures governing the release of info were put into force following a Ministerial Review and as a consequence The Volutary Code of Practice no longer applies. However Co.s with ACA must adhere to the CoP of thier Regulator/Trade Assoc. If you feel that a PPC has breached CoP etc then please contact BPA

 

Comments if you please. Can a private landowner seize a vehicle?

 

I'm not comfortable scanning the whole document and posting (at this moment in time) but if any long standing member wishes to review the details I'll forward.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Fright-Flight-Fight
added 2nd paragraph

[buzby]

I would say seizing a vehicle on private land would not be commensurate with the so-called 'deprivation of enjoyment' of the landowner's property. Further, since you cannot clamp in Scotland for this very reason, private landowners doing so would be committing a criminal act.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Indeed especially as the private land in question is a free car park without time restrictions.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Fright-Flight-Fight
typo

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Ok a further snipper verbatim from the DVLA reply

 

However, should you feel that the Agency has been in breech of the Data Protection Act in releasing of your data with regards to this offence, a complaint should be directed to the: Office of Information Commissioner

 

Can they use the word 'offence'?

Shouldn't it be infraction or similar?

[buzby]

Bad phrasing - but not actionable. As for complaining to the ICO, they have already ruled that what the DVLA do is within the existing guidelines of the DPA exclusions as they are mandated by law.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

So I guess write to the BPA next to outline the PPC not adhering to the CoP.

 

One other question are road markings LEGAL on private land i.e. Yellow lines?

[crem]

 

One other question are road markings LEGAL on private land i.e. Yellow lines?

 

No they are not. Neither are disabled bays or mother-and-toddlers markings etc etc.

 

This would apply also to the "road signs" and markings that they often use such as the 5mph speed limit sign, No Entry sign for an aisle and the give way markings at the end of the aisle. However, it would be really silly to ignore these type of signs as they do help the traffic get around the car park and it would be dangerous to ignore a No Entry sign when everybody else is driving in acceptance of it and therefore not expecting you to be coming the "wrong" way up that aisle!

[lamma]

the parking markings and yellow lines have no force of law. However disregarding directional arrows for traffic flow etc will make you liable for any 'mishaps'. As I recall that has been so for almost ten years. I don't have a reference for it.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

Thanks. Of course anti social driving/parking is not something I condone.

[lamma]

I don't think any of us do. But we do dis-condone scams, PPC or council.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

No court papers yet *tempts fate* LOL

[buzby]

Well, I've just finished reviewing 2 months worth of Small Claims Actions at Glasgoe Sheriff Court (I've been trying to discover the % of those being taken t court by these PPC's in Scotland). For April May, there were a total of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NONE!

 

:)

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

It's June *shakes* LOL

Good work my man Interesting indeed!

I'll go to court if they insist on principle.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

A quick question .. should this matter proceed to court would I as the RK be obliged to state who the driver was at the date in question?

 

Of course many people use the RK-ers car and this was 6 months ago. Caveat: I would not lie

 

Anyway for posterity here's the generic DVLA reply ..

 

*DVLA REPLY REMOVED*

 

Edited June 26, 2009 by Fright-Flight-Fight
*DVLA REPLY REMOVED*

[sameagle]

"the Agency has been in breech of" ??

 

They're not very good at spolling, are they?

 

Sam

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

LOL .. I might write back and ask for a translation in Engleesh!

[crem]

After further investigations with ******* the vehicle was issued with a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE due to the vehicle being parked on double yellow lines in ******* in Glascow

 

Since when can PPCs issue PENALTIES? and how can the DVLA claim that an illegal request from a PPC regarding such a penalty charge comes under the heading of "reasonable cause"?

[buzby]

Easy! THEY cannot understand the difference themselves! Mind you, that letter was worthy of an MP's redaction. I cannot establish if the double yellow lines they refer to are on a public highway, in which case, a PCN would ne the correct description.

[pin1onu]

A quick question .. should this matter proceed to court would I as the RK be obliged to state who the driver was at the date in question?

 

Of course many people use the RK-ers car and this was 6 months ago. Caveat: I would not lie

 

You don't have to state who the driver was. You would obviously confirm that you are the registered keeper. There is no law, case or otherwise that could compel you to name the driver. Certain PPC's (on Planet Perky) like to quote the Norwich Pharmaceutical case but it falls short in a number of areas.

 

However if they have a photo of you in the car or if a judge asks you then you would obviously need to confirm that it's you.

 

I would be surprised if it got that far as you could ask them to provide evidence that you were the driver on the day in your defense statement. They are obliged to disclose all the evidence they have in their "court bundle". If they can't identify you as the driver I would suggest to the court that they have not established privity of contract and that you have no case to answer. Quote the unfair terms in consumer contract where it says about a third party cannot be made to indenmify the person with whom any alleged contract exists.

[Fright-Flight-Fight]

The Yellow Lines were on Private land no doubt. Pics later when I get the chance again just for reference. I think I would need to confirm it was my vehicle as RK .. 6 months ago .. many friend/relations drive my car. Again oif asked assuming I knew I would be honest.

[lamma]

'Some' PPCs also like to refer to the 'pre-action protocols' of CPR. More rubbish from them. the disclosure provisions (31) don't apply to the small claims track. Who would have thought that PPCs would get is so wrong . . . . . . . . they need better consultants.

[looplotty]

lamma, you are confusing pre action protocols with practice directions (CPR).

 

Practice direction 31 does not apply for small claims, this is correct but pre-action protocols apply in ALL cases.

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PROTOCOLS - Ministry of Justice

 

or

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Ministry of Justice

 

But in reading the thread this is about Scotland and the practice directions/pre action protocols are different.

[looplotty]

You will also note point 2.1 of the PROTOCOLS document:

 

The Civil Procedure Rules enable the court to take into account compliance or non-compliance with an applicable protocol when giving directions for the management of proceedings (see CPR rules 3.1(4) and (5) and 3.9(e)) and when making orders for costs (see CPR rule 44.3(a)).

 

So, should a party not comply with the requirements and court papers prepared only to then be responded to, the claimant can (and in my experience always does) apply for a wasted costs order which means the defendant has to pay for the issue fee and other costs incurred to date, even though the matter will be withdrawn.

 

So whilst I cannot comment on the advice to ignore a PPC letter, as that would be biased, the fact still remains of the responsibility of all parties to follow and should a party not comply then the possible financial implications that may follow by not doing so.

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Our law quoting friend again quotes terms but does not know what they mean. A wasted costs order is used by the court to show disapproval with how a case has been litigated and then only applied in very extreme cases. If the defendant has received a letter or letters before action for a matter for which he believes he is not liable, and stays silent until the claim form is issued and then issues a defence, he is entirely within his rights and no court would apply such an order. It is no good Perky just boning up on legal text books, and CPR rules, you must also try to understand the context and apply some common sense. If I send you a letter demanding £1 million for some unspecified thing that you are not liable for would you ignore it? Of course you would and the same is true of unenforcable PPC invoices. If I then issue a claim for the £1 million amount and you ignore it, or you issue a defence but later settle for that amount, that is a different matter entirely. Keep trying though Perky, you are making some very limited progress but it cannot be easy for one who has had no formal legal training whatever.

[looplotty]

GCR, you are really showing how much of a fool you are when it comes to understanding of how things happen.

I can assure you (not that I expect you to believe me) that costs applications have been used before by at least 2 PPCs where a defendant has ignored letters/debt recovery and been formally put on notice to respond and the court has awarded the costs for the defendant being unreasonable - maybe the judges were just dopey and did not understand the law, unlike as it appears you do. Again I can only work on FACT and the orders that I have seen as given by the county court.