Parking charges - scotland

[tartansand]

My wife has recieved letters from a company called parking eye refering to a parking charge notice

for parking contravention in a shopping centre service yard.

 

She has now recieved a letter from debt recovery plus ltd for higher amount

which says if she does not pay the case will be passed to the creditor's solicitor

 

.having read previous posts on this and other forums i have told her to ignore it

but she is really worried as the most recent letter states

' court action against you could seriously affect your ability to obtain credit in the future.

 

'we live in scotland and the car is registered here,

she was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Having visited the site in question the signs that are in place cannot be seen until you enter the site

and as it was dark at the time of the visit cannot be read until you are right in front of them.

 

Can anyone of and guidance on the situation in scotland?

[Crocdoc]

Give me 30 minutes I will come back with a response. You have nothing to worry about as owner/Keeper liabilty does NOT apply in Scotland and there is no obligation to name the driver.

 

Parking Eye do not do Scottish Court actions amd DRP cannot do anythiing to impact on her credit rating they are only debt collectors doing what debt collectors do (lots of noise but no clout)

 

I will go through the catalogue of DRP letters and come back to you.

[Crocdoc]

You can continue to ignore , personally I choose to respond.

 

I refer to your demand dated the XXXXX

 

In response, I would ask you to note the following.

 

The registered keeper/owner of a vehicle is under no obligation to provide details of the driver or any other information to a commercial company of no legal status whatsoever. (Scottish Juridiction)

 

Please note the following statement issued by the British Parking Association relating to keeper liability in Scotland

 

Contract law makes it unlawful for the private parking operator to pursue the Registered Keeper of the vehicle – it is a fundamental part of contract law that a contract is formed between person A and person B (the operator and the driver) and with a few exceptions (the law of agency being one), person C (the keeper) has no part in the formation of that contract and so cannot be held liable

 

Furthermore,, where a ticket has been issued under the law of contract to a vehicle which although allowed to park on the land, is in breach of the conditions relating to parking, the driver could argue that the charge being demanded is so high that it amounts to a penalty and is therefore unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

What the regulations state

 

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated when it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

The previous paragraphs are also supported by the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract

 

Transferral to a debt collection agency and the threat of additional charges is also in my opinion questionable for the following reasons taken from the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance.

 

2.6 Paragraph H.

Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for money.

 

2.8 Paragraph A

Sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

2.8 Paragraph J

Requiring an individual to supply information to prove they are not the debtor in question.

 

In Conclusion, the contents of this correspondence should not be considered as a letter of appeal, but as total denial of liability..

 

I hope this clearly outlines my position

 

Yours faithfully

[peigibeag]

I had one, and all these letters. I wrote to the supermarket head office. They quashed it.

[ericsbrother]

Parking Eye are using DR+ rather than taking civil action because they know almost any claim in Scotland is dead in the water. the burden of proof lies entirely with them with regard to who the driver was so writing to the Registered Keeper is an abuse of their access to the DVLA database and you might want to consider writing to your MP and the DVLA about this.

Also fire off the above letter to PE, not DR+

[tartansand]

Thanks for all the help, I will get the letter sent today and update you on any responses we get. Just one more question - should my wife state in the letter that she was not the driver at the time?

[Crocdoc]

Use the letter above , the fist paragraph covers all bases , the burden of proof rests with the pursuer in Scotland.

[BoardinBob]

 

Please note the following statement issued by the British Parking Association relating to keeper liability in Scotland

 

Contract law makes it unlawful for the private parking operator to pursue the Registered Keeper of the vehicle – it is a fundamental part of contract law that a contract is formed between person A and person B (the operator and the driver) and with a few exceptions (the law of agency being one), person C (the keeper) has no part in the formation of that contract and so cannot be held liable

 

 

 

CROCDOC, do you have a link to this statement from the BPA. It would be very useful in a battle I'm having.

[ericsbrother]

DR+ are rentathreats and not worth the cost of a stamp. If you correspond they will threaten yopu with all sorts but as they have no powers to do anything it is all just hot air.

PE are not daft enough to take you to court and that is why they spent £15 on DR+ to write some scary letters. They also now it is not going any further so are hoping you are frightened into paying money you can never owe.