Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: moriraaca on December 05, 2024, 05:16:23 am
-
Thank you very much, I'll follow your advice.
-
You can safely ignore anything from CEL or any debt collectors. If they are intellectually malnourished enough to send you a Letter of Claim (LoC), then please show us.
A Letter of Claim is different from a debt collection letter in that it will give you 30 days to make payment rather than the usual debt collector 14 days. I seriously doubt they will issue one but you never know the lengths they will go to in their greedy appetite for more money.
-
Hello,
First of all, massive thanks for the long and comprehensive reply - I truly appreciate it, and the explanation of my situation was very clear. Thank you!
To answer the most important question: I'm an English resident, the ticket was issued during my holiday trip to Scotland. So everything from the reply applies to me I believe.
Just to make sure I understand this correctly: I was planning to contact CEL and let them know I will not pay, and I will fight for as long as I can. This was mostly to show them that pursuing my case will be very costly for them, and not worth the effort. My understanding now however is that it's better to just keep quiet, and completely avoid contact (either by initiating it, or replying), both with CEL and any debt collector company that gets engaged, correct?
I definitely should've ask for help before interacting with the company. In my defence, I didn't know where to ask for help at the time (even now I've found this forum by a lucky accident), and also perhaps naively I genuinely thought it's a simple misunderstanding that I'll be able to straight out quickly. Silly me, but at least I'll know better next time.
Thank you again!
-
First things first... do you live in Scotland? Secondly... For every occurrence of the word "fine" in any of the correspondence I will personally pay you £100.
You have not been "fined". You have simply received a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company because the driver has allegedly breached a contract. CEL are a private company and have no "authority" to issue fines or penalties under statutory law. This is a contractual matter under civil law.
It's a pity you had not come here for advice before appealing. In Scotland, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which establishes 'keeper liability' for parking charges, does not apply. This means that if a vehicle is parked on private land in Scotland and incurs a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), only the driver—not the registered keeper—can be held liable for the charge. The registered keeper is under no legal obligation to disclose the driver's identity.
Since it took place in Scotland, Scottish law—which does not recognize keeper liability for private parking charges—prevails. Therefore, even if the registered keeper lives in England, they should not be held liable for a parking charge incurred in Scotland. Unfortunately, it sounds as though you've blown that winning point away by admitting to being the driver when there was no legal obligation to do so.
However, all is not lost. In terms of legal proceedings, jurisdiction typically depends on where the alleged breach occurred. Given that the incident happened in Scotland, any legal action would need to be initiated there. However, pursuing a registered keeper in England (assuming you do not live in Scotland, hence the first question) for an incident in Scotland would be legally complex and potentially impractical for the parking company. CEL would not initiate a claim under the Scottish Simple Procedure (their equivalent of the small claims track of the English County Court) as it would cost them far more than they could ever hope to recover.
If the Keeper of a vehicle admits to being the driver at the time of an alleged parking contravention in Scotland, it changes the situation. The alleged parking contravention occurred in Scotland. Therefore, Scottish law governs the contract and any claim arising from it, regardless of where the driver (or keeper) resides.
This means that any legal proceedings related to the alleged breach would need to be pursued in a Scottish court. If the parking company wished to pursue the driver (now identified), they would need to file a claim in Scotland. Once a judgment is obtained there, enforcement in England would require additional legal steps.
Scottish and English legal systems are distinct, which adds complexity to cross-border claims. CEL would not bother because of the huge costs (to them) for very little material gain.
As already stated, by admitting to being the driver, you made yourself directly liable under the terms and conditions of parking on private land, as per Scottish law. This removes the usual argument that the keeper is not liable (which is the default position under Scottish law due to the absence of ‘keeper liability’ as provided by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).
By acknowledging you were the driver (inadvertently or otherwise), you also admitted (implicitly or explicitly) to entering into a contract with CEL. This makes any claim against you as the driver valid under contract law, provided CEL can prove the signage was sufficient to form a contract and the terms were clear and enforceable.
The practical implications for CEL now are that CEL could use the admission to attempt to claim the charge against you, the driver. However, enforcing this in an English court would require navigating a choice of jurisdiction. CEL must justify why an English court should hear a dispute about a contract governed by Scottish law. Legal papers would need to comply with cross-border service requirements.
In summary, admitting to being the driver shifted liability directly to you but does not change the fact that Scottish law governs the dispute. It also complicates CEL’s ability to enforce the claim outside Scotland.
Finally, in answer to your questions:
- Is my understanding of what can happen next correct? Especially regarding my credit report?
Absolutely no chance of anything "affecting" your credit report. For that to happen, you would need to be sued in the English county court, lose the case and then fail to pay the CCJ within 28 days of judgment. As long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days, there is no record of it on your credit history. It is completely expunged as though it never existed.
- Is my case as strong as I think it is? It honestly feels very strong, but it also seemed strong before I still lost 2 appeals.
It is extremely doubtful that anything will come of this. Apart from a flood of useless debt collector letters which can safely be ignored and must never be responded to. Third party debt collectors are powerless to do anything except try and scare low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up. They have no power to do anything else. They cannot take you to court and they certainly cannot send anyone round to collect. Ignore them. Eventually, they will give up because they are on a no-win, no-fee deal with CEL.
- Possibly related: is the fact that the hotel seems to be permanently closed now (according to google maps) a problem? They've helped me with some documents before, but they won't be able to back my story now.
It's not a problem. It would ave been helpful but hopefully you have copies of any correspondence with them, either postal or electronic.
- Any other advices about my case and next steps I'm planning?
The only advice I can give is that you can now safely ignore everything else that comes your way. Unless it is a Letter of Claim (LoC) or an N1SDT county court claim from the CNBC or, even more unlikely, a "Form 3A" which outlines the details of the claim from the Scottish Sheriff Court, get on with your life and stop trying to overthink it.
If you are a Scottish resident, then it is a slightly different matter but you've not told us whether that is the case.
-
Do you live in Scotland?
-
Hello everyone, and thank you in advance for your help.
I'll try to describe my case (somewhat) briefly here, but since unfortunately this case has been going on for a while (I wish I found this forum sooner!) it's a bit convoluted. There's a bunch of documentation that was generated throughout the process by all sides, you can find it here, hopefully organised clearly enough (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xVc8r6Fkpvo-S43or9qk-XTvpVvIRyXF?usp=sharing) (although annoyingly, one thing is missing - my original appeal to Popla; I haven't saved it myself, and apparently now I can't get it from Popla's web portal after the appeal process was finished).
I've booked a room in Campanile Glasgow SECC-Hydro hotel (https://maps.app.goo.gl/h394JXPqgMXPfuaE6) (which I just learned is now permanently closed - perhaps not ideal for my case). It came with a parking space. Upon arrival, it turned out the hotel parking spaces were a part of a bigger parking lot. As I was checking in, I followed hotel staff instructions: I've made sure I'm parked in a space that belongs to the hotel (they showed me a map), and I also added my Reg number to the online system used by the hotel.
To my huge surprise, some time later I got a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement. They claimed I've parked on their ground without paying - and I indeed didn't pay, because my spot was supposed to be included in my hotel booking. I've emailed them as I was sure it's a simple misunderstanding, but again to my surprise they've rejected my appeal, claiming "It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they adhere to the parking terms", whatever that means.
I've appealed to Popla. I explained the situation, I attached a bunch of documents showing where my car was parked, excerpt from the hotel system with my Reg number (I got it from the hotel), etc. Again, I was pretty sure my case is very strong.
The company (Civil Enforcement) responded to my appeal, they've attached a bunch of docs, with one interesting twist. They still claimed I didn't follow the rules. They expect everyone entering the parking lot to pay, but apparently there is an "exemption camera" there. If I'd driven through a certain line (there was a map showing the location of camera and it's FOV), I'd be recorded by the camera, and considered a "hotel guest". They've claimed that because they didn't get me on that camera, this proves I wasn't parked on one of hotel parking spaces.
Well, that's simply not true. While it's correct that majority of hotel parking spaces could only be reached by crossing that imaginary line, there were a few spaces which were reachable without the need of doing so. This can be proved using the parking maps I got from the hotel (I have a photo of it) and from CE, and also simply by visiting Street View - there are clear signs that a bunch of parking spaces (one of which I parked on) belong to the hotel. It was very much possible to enter the parking lot, park on a hotel space (one of those few), and leave the parking lot without ever being recorded by the "exemption camera". Additionally, I was never told there's a "need" to be recorded by this camera, indeed I didn't even know it existed. It was not mentioned by the hotel staff, and it wasn't on any of the signs informing about parking rules (it's literally never mentioned on pictures of the signs attached by CE itself - in fact it's never mentioned what hotel guests are supposed to do).
I've added comment to the CE response to my Popla appeal. I've explained carefully (among other things) that exemption camera did not cover all parking spaces. I've pointed out it's possible to park in one of the hotel parking spaces without being caught on exemption camera. I've backed this with a detailed map explaining the situation. I've stressed out there was no mention of the camera at all, and of the need to cross this imaginary "exemption camera" line to be considered a hotel guest.
Again, I thought my case is very strong. To my surprise the Popla appeal was unsuccessful too. If I understand their verdict correctly, my original appeal was not enough, and while possibly my latter arguments about the placement of the "exemption camera" would be important for the case, they weren't taken into account as Popla will only consider arguments from the original appeal, ignoring every further arguments - like what I put in the comment to the CE response. I'd like to point out here, that I wasn't able to use those additional arguments during the original appeal as I obviously had no idea about the "exemption camera" and where it was located before CE replied.
I got the response from Popla early October. I was planning to see what are my other options, but I was busy with life recently and didn't do anything else. Couple of weeks ago I got another letter from CE about outstanding debt, "final reminder" or something, and I've figured I need to make sure I know what to do.
My plan is: I don't intend to pay the fine as I strongly feel the law (and truth) is on my side, and I find what CE is doing a predatory tactic. I intend to message CE and tell them I will not pay, and I'll fight them as hard as I can (mostly to let them know it won't be an easy case). My understanding is, they either give up (ok, case closed) or take me to court. At court, I'll either win (ok, case closed) or loose. My further understanding is that even if I loose, I can still make the payment at that point - although the payment will be larger (significantly, but not by a crazy amount - the fine was £100, and even at the last stage the total amount shouldn't be above £500). This is somewhat important to me because I'm OK with the risk of larger payment if I loose, but one thing I want to avoid if possible is the fine/case affecting my credit report. My understanding is this will not happen even in the worst case scenario (I lose the case) if I pay all the costs promptly - this will not show up on my credit report.
So my questions are:
- Is my understanding of what can happen next correct? Especially regarding my credit report?
- Is my case as strong as I think it is? It honestly feels very strong, but it also seemed strong before I still lost 2 appeals.
- Possibly related: is the fact that the hotel seems to be permanently closed now (according to google maps) a problem? They've helped me with some documents before, but they won't be able to back my story now.
- Any other advices about my case and next steps I'm planning?