PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

APCOA passed to ZZPS - SCOTLAND PCN
Jamotron
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:17
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,317



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

This post has been edited by Jamotron: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



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.

This post has been edited by kommando: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jamotron
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 11:40
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,317



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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:01
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Only come back if you get an LBA (letter before action) or actual Claim. Doubt you will ever need to come back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 12:30
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,074
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Is this the same case?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...0&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.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 10 Sep 2018 - 13:20
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Advice has not changed since last time and any legislation change will not be retrospective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jamotron
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:03
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,317



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

Attached File(s)
Attached File  New_Document_1_.pdf ( 649.52K ) Number of downloads: 52
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:14
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



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.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jamotron
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 10:19
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,317



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:03
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,710
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 07:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,022
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



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.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 07:15


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:24
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



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.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motorist111
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 23:06
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,307



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/.../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.

This post has been edited by motorist111: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 23:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 04:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,022
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



@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.


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motorist111
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 07:03
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,307



Sorry just opened a new thread, thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:39
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,415
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:49
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



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.

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 04:55
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,022
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



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-judgme...00-ff0000d74aa7

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


This post has been edited by emanresu: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 05:02


--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 09:35
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 16th December 2018 - 23:31
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.