Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2243 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I received a Charge Notice from CP Plus yesterday for parking in the Stirling MOTO Services (just off the M9) for 7 hours and 39 minutes.

It advises that you are only allowed to park for 2 hours free of charge before parking charges apply which you are supposed pay for by phone on the day. The charge is for £100 however if I pay within 14 days they will accept £60 (how generous). Also it advises if payment is not received within 28 days an initial debt collection charge of £40 will be incurred.


Unfortunately I didn't see any signs advising of this otherwise I wouldn't have parked there. I was travelling up to Dundee for a meeting and agreed to meet a colleague at the Stirling Services to allow us to travel up together in one car, leaving my car parked at the services. My colleague also didn't see any signs advising of this.


I've read a few of the threads on here for similar situations and can see that most of the time the advice has been to appeal the charge however in most of the other cases the reasons for a prolonged stay have been a lot more helpful to an appeal (eg pulled over to rest for a few hours due to long drive). I've also noticed in a lot of the other threads that people are advising using POPLA as a tool in the appeal however as this is in Scotland am I right in saying POPLA doesn't apply?

Do I still have grounds for an appeal? I am the only named driver on the insurance for the car so am I able to play the "I'm not legally obliged to name who was driving on the day" card? Can anyone offer any advice as to what my course of action should be? Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

If its in Scotland they can't do anything.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Protection of Frredoms Act 2012 doesnt apply to Scotland. This legislation give people the right, if certain protocols are followed to make the keeper of a vehicle liable for the activities and hence debt of the driver, if the driver cannot be identified. In Scotland you cannot be sued for trespass and no PoFA means no keeper liability. In your case, the parking co must identify the driver at the time and you dont have to help them in this task. They cannot assume that by not saying who was driving it infers that the keeper wass, they have to prove that they have the right person as it is actually a brach of contract they are claiming for and so they must identify who the contract is with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What should I be dong in the meantime. Should I be making any sort of response to this? Unlikely, but if they were to prove it was me who was driving via the service station CCTV would this mean they could do something about it? Lastly, I'm going to be applying for a mortgage in a month or so's time, so don't want to damage my credit rating in any way. Would this hanging over me affect it in anyway. From what I've seen elsewhere it looks like parking fines / charges have nothing to do with your credit rating so I suspect not, however what happens if it goes to court or something like that, is there a point where it could start to affect my credit rating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to your invoice dated the xxxxxx


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

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


In addition, liability for payment could only be determined by a Sherriff under Scottish Civil Law and such demands should not be confused in any way with Penalty Charge Notices issued under the terms of a Road Traffic Order.


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.


2.10 Paragraph B

Misleading debtors into believing that they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there is no contractual provision. .


I am also aware that I am under no obligation to engage in any way with debt collection agents.


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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for that havinastella. Is this something you or someone you know has used before? Do you know what kind of response (if any) they / you got? Does anyone know if I am right with the credit rating thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the service station CCTV has nothing to do with the parking company and cannot be used for any purpose that it wasnt gathered for, nor can it be passed on to anyone else.

If you want to say something to the parking co by all means use the above rebuttal statement. Dont forget though, these companies only make money by intimidation lies and confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know about the CCTV, thanks. I don't mind engaging in written correspondence with them and it doesn't bother me what they come back and say as I know that's exactly what they're trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, someone gave me a similar template a couple of years ago on this forum (thanks Crocdoc). I sent he letter then got a reminder. I responded to this (again thanks to advice here) asking them to cease harassing me. I have not herd anything since (though just got another one - was a few mins over the 2 hours as met a friend by chance - doh!), so good to know similar advice being given. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...