Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ APCOA passed to ZZPS - SCOTLAND PCN

Posted by: Jamotron Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:17
Post #1415267

Hi Forum,

In Scotland here, and the registered keeper of the vehicle has received this letter pertaining to a PCN from APCOA Ltd. It seems it has now been passed to ZZPS which seems to be adebt recovery service?

The driver of the vehicle is not known, however the charge has leapt up to £155. Looking for some advice please? With POPLA and POFA not existing in Scotland, what's the best course of action?

Does ParkingEye vs Beavis mean anything in Scotland?

You're all very knowledgeable and have been helpful so far, just wanting to make the right decisions here.

Regards

Posted by: kommando Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:32
Post #1415271

QUOTE
Looking for some advice please? With POPLA and POFA not existing in Scotland, what's the best course of action?


No keeper liability in Scotland so ignoring is best so as not to accidentally reveal driver.

QUOTE
Does ParkingEye vs Beavis mean anything in Scotland?


It should as it went so far up the tree but in practice it not been tested and as in the clamping ban not needing legislation in Scotland it may have the opposite effect from what the parking companies would like.

Take the document down, no need to tempt anyone to go Sherlock as you will be just ignoring.

Posted by: Jamotron Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:40
Post #1415273

Thanks Kommando

ignore is best option then, since there's no keeper liability. I have removed the document. If there's any further letters I'll post here.


Posted by: kommando Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:01
Post #1415280

Only come back if you get an LBA (letter before action) or actual Claim. Doubt you will ever need to come back.

Posted by: Spudandros Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:24
Post #1415292

QUOTE (Jamotron @ Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:17) *
Hi Forum,

In Scotland here, and the registered keeper of the vehicle has received this letter pertaining to a PCN from APCOA Ltd. It seems it has now been passed to ZZPS which seems to be adebt recovery service?

The driver of the vehicle is not known, however the charge has leapt up to £155. Looking for some advice please? With POPLA and POFA not existing in Scotland, what's the best course of action?

Does ParkingEye vs Beavis mean anything in Scotland?

You're all very knowledgeable and have been helpful so far, just wanting to make the right decisions here.

Regards


Ignore everything unless you are issued with a Simple Procedure Claim, which is unlikely for a single ticket. APCOA are one of the least aggressive companies and usually give up afer 9-12 months. Expect a letter with a 7 day warning by a solicitor threatening fire and brimstone - usually Stirling and Park, or occasionally Rapscallion and Scullion or something. If this is LIDL, ask in store to get it cancelled if you were shopping there.

Beavis is not binding in Scotland. Supreme court rulings are only binding on the jursdictions they are hearing under. The Beavis case went through English County Court system and was heard under English law, but it could be considered persuasive if a case went to court in Scotland.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:30
Post #1415294

Is this the same case?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121200&st=0&

If so, hit 'report' and ask a mod to merge, please. One case, one thread, otherwise we get in all sorts of mess.

Posted by: kommando Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 13:20
Post #1415311

Advice has not changed since last time and any legislation change will not be retrospective.

Posted by: Jamotron Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:03
Post #1423231

Hi all, getting kind of worried - have received another letter from a solicitor:

The registered keeper has asked me to post the letter here for advice. Obviously they don't know who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident however the letters have been getting increasingly threatening and they are quite worried that legal action will commence. Should they respond and tell the solicitors to stop sending letters to them and instead send to the driver?

Any help much appreciated as we're fretting here!

Letter attached.

Jamotron


 New_Document_1_.pdf ( 649.52K ) : 132
 

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:14
Post #1423239

Its not a letter from a solicitor, its a letter from ZZPS on the solicitors headed paper (with their agreement).

If you read what it actually says (rather than how they want you to read it) you'll realise its an irrelevance.

The letters are designed to panic you, get informed by reading other threads and stop panicing.

Posted by: Jamotron Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 10:19
Post #1423253

I phoned up ZZPS, APCOA and QPR Solicitors and asked for general advice (I didn't disclose any information about this case) and they all said POFA applies in Scotland and the Registered Keeper is liable for any tickets on Private Parking areas.

I'm amazed by this as it's completely FALSE.

If i didn't know any better I'd believe them but surely this is fraudulent?

Can I go to trading standards with this?

Jamotron

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:03
Post #1423260

Yes, of course you can. No need to ask here.
Even better if you can get the sols to put that in writing. As then its off to the SRA a swlel.

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 07:14
Post #1423448

QUOTE
Beavis is not binding in Scotland.


@Spudandros

Yes it is. A Supreme Court means it is supreme over all the UK Courts.

What is not binding is the Protection of Freedoms Act which was specifically enacted under E & W law only.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:24
Post #1423473

Jamotron,

Please don't phone these people. They will record the call, and they will be well trained in questions designed to get you to answer in a way that will reveal the driver, without asking you directly. For example, something like, 'when you parked did you see the sign?'

If you have accidentally revealed who was driving then you may have damaged your position.

Do everything in writing.

Posted by: motorist111 Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 23:06
Post #1423687

Hi guys, seemed to be in the same boat as OP and had received the exact same letter (post 8) from QDR in July each for 8 seperate scottish PCNs in 2016 which I had ignored following advice on here and MSE. I have been ignoring all letters however just yesterday received another QDR letter titled ‘FORMAL PRE LITIGATION TRANSFER LETTER’ which seems to have added the outstanding balances for the 8 seperate PCNs into one and states that the case may be transferred to their legal partner Yuill and Kyle Solicitors! I’ve been reading more into the Ninewells case (the three nurses case which the QDR letters quote) and getting more and more worried e.g. after reading the outcome of this thread which seemed to be from one of the 3 nurses who had ignored everything until she got the ‘simple procedure notice’ from court. http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t111073-0.html

I used to think that in Scotland there was a requirement for a claimant to prove the identity of a driver on the balance of probabilities but surely after the 3 nurses joint case, this doesnt seem true atleast for the nurse who was OP in that thread and had ignored everything until the court letter. Apparently he/she even had proof that said person wasn’t at ninewells during those PCN contraventions but still was deemed liable in court. My PCNs date back to 2016 and I would really struggle to provide even that. What do I do?

Sorry to hijack the thread but OP seems to be in the same boat as me back in July so thought I would post here instead of startingyet another thread. Would be good to get a consensus on what the best form of action is for these PCNs in Scotland.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 04:21
Post #1423696

@motorist111

You are hijacking a thread. If you want a general discussion on Scots cases use the Flame Pit as that is what it is for.

Each case is fact specific and this case is nothing like the Ninewells one.

Posted by: motorist111 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 07:03
Post #1423702

Sorry just opened a new thread, thanks

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:39
Post #1423897

QUOTE (Jamotron @ Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:19) *
I phoned up ZZPS, APCOA and QPR Solicitors and asked for general advice (I didn't disclose any information about this case) and they all said POFA applies in Scotland and the Registered Keeper is liable for any tickets on Private Parking areas.

I'm amazed by this as it's completely FALSE.

If i didn't know any better I'd believe them but surely this is fraudulent?

Can I go to trading standards with this?

Jamotron


Phone calls are no good unless recorded, and I think you'd have had to warn them if you were recording it. Why not email and ask these two questions - with the required refs to ID the case, if they can be bothered, but WITHOUT reminding them you stay in Scotland:

1. On what basis are APCOA holding me liable as I am just the registered keeper of this car? Please explain in detail with any applicable law.

2. On what basis are APCOA still sharing and processing my personal data, given that my understanding of the KADOE is that under these circumstances, registered keeper data can only be used to enquire who was driving, and no more. As the driver will not be named you have exhausted any reasonable cause you had in the first place, so on what basis is APCOA's DPO allowing my data to continue to be shared out and demands for money sent to me personally?

You could also send that directly to APCOA's Data Protection Officer, find their contact details by looking at APCOA's Privacy statement.

...and hope they reply so badly you can take the matter to Trading Standards, the Information Commissioner, the DVLA and BPA.

Posted by: Spudandros Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:49
Post #1423976

QUOTE (emanresu @ Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 08:14) *
QUOTE
Beavis is not binding in Scotland.


@Spudandros

Yes it is. A Supreme Court means it is supreme over all the UK Courts.

What is not binding is the Protection of Freedoms Act which was specifically enacted under E & W law only.


Sorry but that is not correct. A Supreme Court ruling on civil cases is only binding on the jurisdiction it was heard under - in the Beavis case it came through English County Court. Its no different from Cases in Scotland ending up at the Supreme Court only being binding in Scotland. If it were the case that Supreme Court cases were binding throughout the UK, you could be in trouble with a Supreme Court ruling on a 16 year old in Scotland being considered as an adult a few years back. Criminal cases will be binding across the UK, though.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 04:55
Post #1424064

QUOTE
Sorry but that is not correct. A Supreme Court ruling on civil cases is only binding on the jurisdiction it was heard under - in the Beavis case it came through English County Court. Its no different from Cases in Scotland ending up at the Supreme Court only being binding in Scotland. If it were the case that Supreme Court cases were binding throughout the UK, you could be in trouble with a Supreme Court ruling on a 16 year old in Scotland being considered as an adult a few years back. Criminal cases will be binding across the UK, though.


Understand the point you are getting at. For example, in yesterday's' "gay cake" Supreme Court ruling, there is a heavy emphasis on the applicable law in Northern Ireland - a different jurisdiction from Scotland, England and Wales, Guernsey and IoM. But in the Beavis case they looked at something more fundamental which is how the law of contract should operate.

And since you won't believe me, could I point out a couple of cases in Scotland where VCS were successful in applying Beavis. VCS v Mackie at paras 13/14 refer to Beavis. She was ordered to pay £24,500 based on Beavis and not GPEOL

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a48631a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

There was a second case VCS v Brown which was around £4,000 for about 30 tickets which again was the Beavis ruling.

Posted by: kommando Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 09:35
Post #1424095

There is nothing in that judgement that states Beavis was binding, the Sheriff just stated they agreed with the finding. If it had been seen to be binding would the Sheriff not have stated so.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 09:51
Post #1424102

QUOTE
There is nothing in that judgement that states Beavis was binding, the Sheriff just stated they agreed with the finding. If it had been seen to be binding would the Sheriff not have stated so.


It appears we are discussing the literal. In that case, I will amend to effectively binding in the same way as cases are "effectively binding" in common law jurisdictions.

But to say that Beavis or the rationale behind Beavis is not "effectively binding" is to mislead.

And we all know what happened when everyone jumped on the GPEOL band waggon. The PPC industry are still dining out / replacing their Porches on that one.

Posted by: kommando Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 10:45
Post #1424146

This sums it up, for it to be binding a Supreme Court judgement needs to be on a Scottish case, if the case is outside of Scotland then it is persuasive.

http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/06/17/the-scottish-legal-system-in-a-nutshell/

QUOTE
The courts are another source of law in Scotland and the doctrine of judicial precedent operates within the hierarchy of the courts. Decisions of the Supreme Court (or House of Lords) in Scottish appeals bind all lower Scottish courts. Decisions of the Inner House of the Court of Session are also binding but those of single judges in the Outer House, Sheriffs or Justices of the Peace, are not. English cases may be of persuasive authority in Scottish courts as are decisions from mixed law jurisdictions such as South Africa.

Posted by: Spudandros Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 13:19
Post #1424214

QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 11:45) *
This sums it up, for it to be binding a Supreme Court judgement needs to be on a Scottish case, if the case is outside of Scotland then it is persuasive.

http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/06/17/the-scottish-legal-system-in-a-nutshell/

QUOTE
The courts are another source of law in Scotland and the doctrine of judicial precedent operates within the hierarchy of the courts. Decisions of the Supreme Court (or House of Lords) in Scottish appeals bind all lower Scottish courts. Decisions of the Inner House of the Court of Session are also binding but those of single judges in the Outer House, Sheriffs or Justices of the Peace, are not. English cases may be of persuasive authority in Scottish courts as are decisions from mixed law jurisdictions such as South Africa.



Spot on.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)