Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Deeptulip on June 21, 2025, 11:50:50 pm

Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on December 03, 2025, 05:40:55 pm
I can't tell you how grateful I am for this - thank you so much. I will keep this thread updated.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on December 03, 2025, 04:43:00 pm
Quote from: Deeptulip on December 03, 2025, 01:33:24 pm
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.

If the Sheriff asks questions like:

Q: Why didn’t you respond to the solicitor’s letter before court?
A: It was a vague demand, not a proper legal notice. It didn’t say what the legal basis was, didn’t identify any contract or proof, and it falsely implied I could be liable as the keeper. I didn’t believe it warranted a response.

Q: Are you willing to name the driver?
A: I’m not under any legal obligation to do so, and I prefer not to. I am not the driver and cannot assist further on that point.

Q: Did you give the driver permission to use your vehicle?
A: The car was being used with permission, yes, but that doesn’t create legal liability for me. There is no law in Scotland that says the keeper is liable just because someone else used the car.

Q: Have you made any attempt to settle the claim?
A: No, because the letter before action did not explain any valid legal claim against me. It was a generic threat that didn’t offer a genuine opportunity to resolve anything.

Q: What outcome are you seeking today?
A: I respectfully ask the court to consider that the Claimant has not identified the driver, cannot rely on keeper liability, and has no lawful basis for this claim. I would like the case dismissed.

Here is a list of short, calm, and assertive responses you can give if the Claimant makes various common arguments at the CMD. These are for use in Scotland, specifically where keeper liability does not apply and the Claimant (like VCS) is pursuing the wrong party.

CLAIMANT: “The respondent parked the car and breached the terms.”
RESPONSE: I was not the driver. That allegation is incorrect and unsupported by any evidence. The burden is on the Claimant to prove who was driving. They cannot.

CLAIMANT: “As keeper, the respondent is responsible.”
RESPONSE: That may apply under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but that law does not extend to Scotland. There is no keeper liability in Scots law.

CLAIMANT: “They haven’t denied being the driver.”
RESPONSE: I have clearly stated that I was not the driver. I am not obliged to say anything further, and there is no legal presumption in Scotland that the keeper was the driver.

CLAIMANT: “They haven’t said who the driver was.”
RESPONSE: Scots law does not place any obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. That’s a matter for the Claimant to prove, not for me to disprove.

CLAIMANT: “They should have responded to our letter and offered to settle.”
RESPONSE: The letter I received was misleading and did not contain proper legal particulars. It did not offer a genuine opportunity to settle, nor did it explain the legal basis of the claim. It was not a compliant Letter of Intimation.

CLAIMANT: “We believe, on the balance of probabilities, they were the driver.”
RESPONSE: That is speculation. The Claimant has no evidence. There are no photos showing the driver, no witness, and no admission. Guesswork is not sufficient to meet the civil standard.

CLAIMANT: “They are just trying to avoid liability on a technicality.”
RESPONSE: I am simply asserting my legal rights. The Claimant has brought a claim without evidence and against the wrong party. That is not a technicality — that is a failure to meet the required legal standard.

CLAIMANT: “They’re refusing to co-operate.”
RESPONSE: I have responded clearly and honestly. I was not the driver. Scots law does not require me to do more than that.

CLAIMANT: “Our signage made the terms clear.”
RESPONSE: Even if the signage were clear, it would bind only the driver. I was not there, I did not see any signs, and I did not enter into any contract.

CLAIMANT: “We’ve incurred legal costs.”
RESPONSE: The total value of the claim is under £200. Under the Simple Procedure Rules and the relevant Expenses Order, no legal expenses are recoverable in this claim.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on December 03, 2025, 02:51:44 pm
Quote from: DWMB2 on December 03, 2025, 01:36:14 pm
It's asking me to "request access", you need to change the share options to make it publicly viewable.

Have updated access now - thanks for flagging!
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: DWMB2 on December 03, 2025, 01:36:14 pm
It's asking me to "request access", you need to change the share options to make it publicly viewable.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on December 03, 2025, 01:33:24 pm
Hello all, update on the above procedure - I have received a letter from the Sheriff court inviting me to a case management discussion in January:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dM-9Uug63a_fOB_pBm7Qpiy2tMqaWeEE/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dM-9Uug63a_fOB_pBm7Qpiy2tMqaWeEE/view?usp=sharing)

I'm grateful for any advice on how to approach this. I don't want to tell them that I know who was driving or name them, but don't want to be obstructive either!
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 31, 2025, 06:31:34 pm
If you've not yet responded to the claim, you can put in D2 the following:

Quote
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.

If you've already responded, it doesn't really matter, as you've raised the failure to send a forma LoI in your defence.

I have a copy of the letter you provided and it clearly was not a Letter of Intent (LoI).
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on October 31, 2025, 05:14:39 pm
I attached it back in June to the original thread (so there are some replies that cover its contents) but I actually can't find it - I looked for the screenshot as well but no sign. It was basically a demand that didn't say anything official like 'intimation' or that it was a notice of legal action. It basically said i had 10 days to pay or I'd be taken to court.

The response (above) was that it was a joke of a letter that had no legal basis and was definitely nothing but a debt collection demand.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 31, 2025, 04:02:14 pm
You never showed us the actual letter you received. It would help if you showed that to us, as you may have been able to add a response to section D2 of the forum.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on October 31, 2025, 09:54:46 am
Hi - I've linked to the pack below. It included a 'time to pay' application as well but that seems to be immaterial: copy of pack (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_pR_F2X5FzcisKPp3idC1PLX08IBDkV/view?usp=sharing)

I've also completed the response form on the portal - will see what happens now!
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: DWMB2 on October 30, 2025, 08:53:56 pm
Do also make sure to share the rest of the pack with us as advised.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on October 30, 2025, 08:42:30 pm
I cannot thank you enough - this has helped enormously and I think I will get some sleep tonight. I will act immediately and complete the form online as suggested.

I think I have been in ostrich mode hoping this would go away, but lesson learned here.

I am most grateful and I will update with the outcome.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 30, 2025, 06:42:26 pm
I think they are testing the waters here. There is no way they can recover their costs even if they are successful. No claim under the simple procedure can recover any costs if it is for under £200. Even if it were for more, the cost cap is so low as to not make it worthwhile expect maybe for a case of multiple PCNs where the value of the claim is over £1,500.

Even if they were successful, they may possible recover the £100 charge but it will have cost them many times that to engage a Scottish law firm to correspond and issue the claim. If it goes as far as a "case management discussion" (hearing) they would face additional costs for their legal representative to attend. For a potential gain of £100, it would have cost them at least £500 to do so.

Then again, VCS are incredibly vexatious and follow legal advice from a complete numpty for their in-house "legal department". Jake Burgess has worked as a Consultant and Legal Executive for Excel and VCS, and has represented them both in county court proceedings, almost invariably unsuccessfully. You can sense his incompetent advice all over this.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: DWMB2 on October 30, 2025, 06:24:19 pm
Quote
I promise to do better in future (repeated 100 times on the blackboard).
;D

I was going to say even VCS aren't quite daft enough to claim PoFA applies in Scotland, but then thought better of it.

As far as I can remember they're the only firm I think I've seen actually issue claims for a single ticket where they don't know who was driving.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 30, 2025, 06:21:43 pm
True, my bad. You're correct — that was premature and I have adjusted it. Since the keeper didn't respond to the solicitor's letter, VCS/Pollock Fairbridge may well not know the keeper wasn’t driving, and their current claim appears to allege that the keeper was.

In fact, the Simple Procedure Notice literally says:

Quote
“The respondent parked the vehicle without making payment…”

That is a direct assertion that the keeper was the driver. It's a factual claim the court will expect them to prove. As you correctly note — they can't.

Also, "The cause of action appears to rest on PoFA", I shouldn’t have assumed that VCS is relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA to transfer liability. They're not saying “you are liable as the keeper”, but rather falsely asserting that the keeper was the driver.

I've adjusted the defence so that it is accurate and neutral — it neither assumes PoFA is being invoked, nor lets the claimant off the hook for making a baseless driver allegation.

I promise to do better in future (repeated 100 times on the blackboard).
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: DWMB2 on October 30, 2025, 05:58:26 pm
Quote
Firstly, you were not the driver. And they know it. 

I'm not sure they do know it, yet. The OP appears not to have followed your advice to respond to their previous correspondence.

Quote
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 Scotland
From 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".

They have no evidence of this and of course it is false, but that seems to be the basis of their claim.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 30, 2025, 05:50:55 pm
You are now dealing with a live court claim. The document you've received is a Simple Procedure Notice of Claim (Form 6A) issued by the Scottish Sheriff Court, raised by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS), and filed on their behalf by Pollock Fairbridge Schiavone Solicitors.

This is not speculative debt collection anymore. The court process has started and you are now named as the Respondent in active litigation. If you do not respond, the Claimant can request a Decree (Scottish equivalent of a County Court Judgment) by default. You must act immediately.

The claim amount is £160, which includes the original £100 parking charge and a £60 “debt recovery” fee. Their written case is that you (the keeper) parked the car without paying, entered into a contract by reading the signs, failed to comply with that contract, and now owe them a contractual sum. That’s their story.

Here’s what’s wrong with it.

Firstly, you were not the driver. The Claimant appears to assume you were, but has provided no evidence to support that allegation. They cannot prove otherwise. Under Scots law, unlike in England and Wales, there is no statutory keeper liability. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply in Scotland. That means unless they can prove you were the driver — not guess, not imply, not presume — they are suing the wrong person. This is a fatal flaw in their claim.

Secondly, the pre-action letter they sent you in June did not comply with Rule 2.1(3) of the Simple Procedure Rules. It was not a properly constituted Letter of Intimation. It did not explain the legal basis of the alleged claim, did not cite any relevant law, did not give you a proper opportunity to consider your position, and was clearly designed to coerce payment under pressure. It contained misleading suggestions about your credit file being affected and referenced debt collection, not litigation. That is now demonstrably false and arguably dishonest.

The next step is straightforward: you must submit Form 4A (Response Form) to the court within 21 days of the date on the front page of Form 6A. The easiest way is to do it online via the Scottish Courts’ Simple Procedure portal. You can also post it or deliver it by hand to the court named in the documents.

In Form 4A, you should tick the box that says you dispute the claim. Then in the box titled “Why do you disagree with the claim?”, you write a short, firm defence that makes your position clear. You don’t need to write an essay — you will have the opportunity to expand if the Sheriff orders a case management discussion or written submissions.

Suggested wording:

Quote
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.

That will do for now. The Sheriff will consider your written response and may either dismiss the claim outright or order a case management discussion, which is an informal court appointment to clarify the issues. You’ll be guided through what to do at that stage.

Costs risk: If you were not successful (unlikely), you will not automatically be liable for £160. The court is very likely to strike out the added £60 “debt recovery” fee, as it is not a genuine loss, not supported by evidence, and not contractually justified. Because the total claim value is under £200, no expenses or solicitor fees can be awarded under the Simple Procedure (Limits on Award of Expenses) Order 2016 unless you act unreasonably, which you have not.

The absolute worst‑case outcome would be payment of the £100 charge itself if the Sheriff accepted VCS’s legal argument and evidence. If the £60 fee is rejected (as it almost certainly will be), your exposure is limited to the £100 alone.

If you win, they recover nothing. If they discontinue once they realise you understand Scots law and the absence of keeper liability, you can seek an award of expenses for unreasonable conduct, especially if the Sheriff agrees the claim had no proper legal foundation and the solicitor’s pre‑litigation threats were misleading.

If you want to go further once this is dealt with, you could also submit a formal complaint to the Law Society of Scotland about Pollock Fairbridge Schiavone's misleading conduct — particularly their threat of litigation against a keeper with no legal liability.

For now, focus on filing Form 4A within the 21-day deadline. If you can give me the exact date from the top of the Form 6A, I will confirm the last day to file your response and can help prepare your full defence document if required.
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on October 30, 2025, 05:20:35 pm
Please show us the complete pack you have received. Only redact your personal information.
Title: So anxious - have received Notice of Claim from Solicitor over private PCN that I ignored
Post by: Deeptulip on October 30, 2025, 02:54:10 pm
I posted back in June (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/scotland-solicitor-letter-threatening-sheriff-court-for-pcn/msg78278/#msg78278) about receiving a solicitors letter basically hassling me for £160 after I ignored a PCN where I was not the driver.

You offered reassurance and support and suggested I should ignore the letter OR respond to dismiss it. I ignored as I am quite an anxious person and was really reluctant to engage with it.

Now I wish I had, as I have received a very intimidating 40 page printout entitled 'Form 6A - the Simple Procedure Notice of Claim' with the court logo on it. The claim has been raised by the same solicitor that sent me the letter (I don't think I have the letter any more but it essentially just said I had to pay or there would be legal action).

I can respond to the claim using the form, and refuse to pay and say why - I don't really know what will happen if I do that - will I end up potentially in some kind of court proceedings where I'll need to cover legal costs etc?

I'm so worried. This is what the claim is based on:

Link to image (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FHvIUtxOYPBAlctq5YfVJ4rmk9EBa5Du/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on June 26, 2025, 05:59:18 pm
If you have't yet responded to that joke of a letter, I suggest you respond with this instead of the previous suggestion:

Quote
[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]
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on June 26, 2025, 11:51:49 am
Quote from: RichardW on June 22, 2025, 06:46:04 am
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,

Here's the letter they sent over.It seems like its just a demand for money. (attached below)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: b789 on June 22, 2025, 08:24:18 am
You are correct. The Keeper cannot be liable for the charge in Scotland, no matter what anyone may tell you (for now). Ignore the letter. It is simply a debt recovery letter.

There is no legal obligation on the known Keeper to identify the unknown driver. In this case, as the Keeper was not the driver, even more so.

Unless that letter is a Letter of Intimation (Letter Before Claim or Letter of Claim), then it is simply a firm of shyster solicitors acting as debt collectors. If it is an LoI, show it to us.

A debt collector is powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore everything and this will wither on the vine once they realise they've wasted their money and you are not ripe for the picking.

If it is an LoI, then you can respond with the following by email to info@pollockfairbridge.co.uk and also CC in yourself:

Quote
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]
Title: Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: RichardW on June 22, 2025, 06:46:04 am
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,
Title: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
Post by: Deeptulip on June 21, 2025, 11:50:50 pm
My car was parked in a supermarket car park a few months ago and as the supermarket is currently closed the driver didn’t enter the shop - just used the car park. I wasn’t there at the time. I (the registered keeper) later received a ‘ticket’ by post from Vehicle Control Services that was dated 3 weeks before delivery, saying if I didn’t pay the £100 ‘fine’ within 2 wks it would increase to £160.

I didn’t respond. I debated appealing but didn’t get round to it. Now I have received a letter apparently from a solicitor (Pollock Fairbridge) saying they’ve been instructed to raise sheriff court proceedings against me.

They’ve included bank details for me to pay them within 10 days or await court proceedings.

I was not the driver at the time. What should I do here? I believed that in Scotland these fines are not enforceable as the keeper is not obligated to disclose the details of the driver. The company cannot prove that I was in the vehicle let alone driving.

Should I reply to this letter? Or ignore it?