I don't want to tell them that I know who was driving or name them, but don't want to be obstructive either!
Tell who? You are under no legal obligation to tell the court, and certainly not the claimant, who was driving, whether you know or not. The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove you were the driver. Anyone else is not a party to this issue and you will not be asked who was driving if not you. All you are required to say that it was not you. End of.
This is a summary of the position as I understand it right now:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) issued a speculative invoice to you, the registered keeper of a vehicle for an alleged parking contravention at a closed supermarket site. The registered keeper was not the driver, and has made that clear. The original demand was a postal parking charge followed by a misleading solicitor letter from Pollock Fairbridge, demanding payment within 10 days and threatening legal action. That letter failed to comply with Rule 2.1(3) of the Simple Procedure Rules, which requires a reasonable and informative pre-litigation exchange. It was not a compliant Letter of Intimation.
VCS has now filed a formal Simple Procedure claim in the Scottish Sheriff Court for £160, comprised of the original £100 charge and a £60 “debt recovery” fee. The claim form (Form 6A) falsely asserts that the respondent parked the vehicle, which is not only untrue but also critical—because Scots law does not allow keeper liability. There is no presumption in Scots law that the registered keeper was the driver. The burden of proof lies entirely with the pursuer to establish the identity of the driver. Unless VCS can provide actual evidence that you were driving, their case is fundamentally flawed. Mere assertion is not proof, and speculative pleadings are not sufficient to meet the civil standard. In the absence of driver identification, the claim is without legal foundation. Persuasive authority from English case law, such as VCS v Edward (2023), supports the position that liability cannot be inferred from keeper status alone.
You correctly denied liability and submitted the defence. A case management discussion (CMD) has now been ordered by the court to take place by Webex video on 29 January 2026. You must confirm contact details to the court by 12 noon on 26 January.
For section D2 of the response form, the wording used was appropriate. You took no steps to settle the claim because the solicitor’s letter was a threat, not a genuine invitation to resolve the dispute. The court’s own guidance confirms that negotiation must be meaningful. A letter that misstates the law and demands money without evidence is not negotiation. It is designed to intimidate.
At the CMD, you should remain firm: you were not the driver, there is no legal basis to pursue you, and the claim should be dismissed. The added £60 is likely to be struck out as an unrecoverable cost. In any event, no expenses can be awarded in claims under £200 unless a party acts unreasonably.
This case is vexatious. VCS is attempting to mislead the court by mendaciously asserting that you were the driver, with no evidence. The solicitor’s conduct may warrant referral to the Law Society of Scotland. The court should be invited to consider dismissing the claim at CMD stage.
If VCS fails to discontinue, a full hearing will follow, but their case is weak and unsupported by law. You should not settle. You have a strong position and should seek to have the claim thrown out in full.
In a Simple Procedure CMD, the Sheriff will want to understand the issues, check whether the claim is suitable for resolution, and consider next steps — including the possibility of dismissal or a hearing.
Here is a plain, direct narrative you can use at the CMD:
Here is a tailored narrative for the Case Management Discussion (CMD). It includes both an opening statement and short, direct answers to questions the Sheriff may ask.
Opening Statement:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. The claim is based on the assumption that I was the one who parked the car. That is incorrect.
Under Scots law, there is no keeper liability for private parking charges. The legislation that allows this in England and Wales, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, does not apply in Scotland. There is no presumption that the keeper and driver are the same, and I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver.
The Claimant has not provided any evidence to support their allegation. They have simply named me, the keeper, without proof. I have no contract with the Claimant and did not commit any contravention. The claim has no legal basis.
The pre-court letter sent by their solicitor was vague and misleading. It threatened legal action but gave no legal explanation or evidence. It did not meet the standard of a Letter of Intimation and gave me no genuine opportunity to settle or understand the claim.
I respectfully submit that this claim should not have been raised, and the Claimant cannot succeed without proving that I was the driver, which they cannot do.
I don't want to tell them that I know who was driving or name them, but don't want to be obstructive either!
It's asking me to "request access", you need to change the share options to make it publicly viewable.
I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor demanding payment and threatening legal action, but it was misleading and did not comply with Rule 2.1(3) of the Simple Procedure Rules. It provided no explanation of the legal basis for the claim, no evidence, and wrongly implied that I could be liable as the keeper. I was not the driver and have no legal liability. I did not respond to what was clearly an aggressive and unfounded demand, not a genuine attempt to resolve the matter pre-litigation.
I promise to do better in future (repeated 100 times on the blackboard).;D
“The respondent parked the vehicle without making payment…”
Firstly, you were not the driver. And they know it.
The Claimant’s entire cause of action appears to rest on a statutory framework (Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) that has no application in ScotlandFrom what we've seen so far, I'm not sure it does. Their cause of action seems to rest on their claim that the respondent was driving... They claim "the respondent parked".
I deny any liability for the sum claimed. I was not the driver.
The Claimant’s case appears to rest on the unproven allegation that the Respondent was driving. No evidence has been provided to identify the driver, and in Scots law, there is no presumption that the keeper and driver are the same. The Claimant has produced no evidence as to the identity of the driver. There is no legal basis for pursuing the registered keeper in this jurisdiction.
The pre-litigation letter sent by the Claimant’s solicitor was misleading and did not comply with Rule 2.1(3) of the Simple Procedure Rules. This claim is without merit and should not have been raised.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Date]
Pollock Fairbridge Schiavone Solicitors
Pavilion 5, Buchanan Court
Cumbernauld Road
Stepps
Glasgow G33 6HZ
Your Ref: [Insert reference]
Re: Your letter dated 20 June 2025 – Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in relation to your letter of 20 June 2025, which purports to demand payment of £160 on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Ltd in relation to an alleged parking incident.
As you are fully aware — or ought to be — Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not extend to Scotland. As such, there is no statutory provision for transferring liability from driver to keeper. Scots law does not permit presumed keeper liability, and I was not the driver. Your client has no cause of action against me.
Your letter makes vague threats of Sheriff Court action, references credit rating consequences, and seeks payment within 10 days. Yet it fails to provide any particulars of claim, any legal basis for keeper liability, or any explanation of how the sum has supposedly arisen. It is not a compliant Letter of Intimation, nor is it an honest attempt to resolve a genuine dispute. It is nothing more than an aggressive and misleading debt collection letter disguised in solicitor's clothing.
You are acting for a private parking company with no lawful claim in this jurisdiction against a keeper, and you have issued a threatening letter that could easily mislead an uninformed recipient into paying a non-existent debt. You have now targeted someone who is well aware of the law, and I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your firm’s involvement in this matter.
If I receive any further misleading correspondence from your firm in relation to this unenforceable charge, I will submit a formal complaint to the Law Society of Scotland for breaches of Principles B1.14 and B1.15 of the Standards of Conduct — namely, taking unfair advantage of a layperson and issuing threats of litigation without a sound legal foundation. That complaint will include your letter of 20 June and any further correspondence of a similar nature.
I trust I will hear no more about this.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Please post the letter you have received.
You are correct that there is currently no keeper liability in Scotland, so as long as you haven't disclosed the driver's ID then they can take no action. They'd be unlikely to take action for a single ticket anyway. A letter from a real (?) law firm is a step not sure has been seen before,
Re: Your Letter of Intimation regarding Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your letter dated [insert date], which I understand to be a Letter of Intimation on behalf of your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to. I was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. As you will be fully aware, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply in Scotland, and there is no statutory or common law basis under Scots law for transferring liability to a registered keeper. There is no presumption that the keeper was the driver, and I am under no obligation to name the driver.
Your letter is vague and lacks the information necessary to allow me to understand the legal and factual basis of any alleged liability. I therefore require your client to properly particularise its claim, in accordance with the spirit of Rule 2.1(3) of the Simple Procedure Rules 2016 and the Law Society of Scotland’s guidance on pre-action conduct.
Specifically, please provide the following within 14 days:• A clear explanation of the cause of action being pursued.
• Whether your client is pursuing me as the driver or keeper.
• If relying on keeper liability, the legal basis for doing so under Scots law.
• Full details of the alleged contravention, including the duration of any alleged parking and how the amount claimed was calculated.
• Whether the claim is alleged to arise from a breach of contract, and if so, the date and parties to that contract, and a copy of the terms.
• If the claim is alleged to arise from trespass, please provide particulars.
• Photographic evidence of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
• A copy of the contract between your client and the landowner authorising enforcement and legal proceedings.
• A site plan showing the location of signage.
• Photographs of the signage (including size, font, wording, and mounting height) as displayed at the material time.
• Details of the original parking charge and any interest or fees added, including the legal basis for each addition.
• If the additional £60 represents a debt recovery charge, please state whether this includes VAT, and if so, explain why I am being asked to pay VAT on a charge not incurred by me.
• Clarify whether the principal parking charge is being claimed as a contractual charge, consideration for a service, or damages for breach.
I will take advice and consider my position upon receipt of the above. If your client issues proceedings without first providing this information, I will ask the court to sist the case and reserve my right to seek expenses on the grounds of unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]