Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you!

So no need to write out a witness statement where I explain what I was doing that day and provide supporting evidence of that? I feel like although I'm not obligated to, it may help tip the 'balance of probabilities'!

Yes I can provide evidence. However I don’t have anything to provide!

That’s correct.

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.

As an update - following s further CMD date in March, due to PF not showing up to the Case management discussion and the Sheriff asking me if I wanted to just pay to get things done with (err, no) - I have emailed Pollok fairbridge to engage with them as suggested by the Sheriff.

I have used the key points you outlined above, which I never got the chance to say on the call because I was the only party to attend, therefore there was no discussion, so to speak.

I have pasted my email below:

With regard to your correspondence I would like to apologise for not getting in touch to try to resolve this earlier. I was concerned about whether this was in fact a legitimate letter as it appeared to be a request for money rather than a genuine letter of intimation.

In terms of the circumstances, I should have been clear that 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, as you will no doubt be aware, 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.

VCS has not provided any evidence to support their allegation. They have simply named me, the keeper, without proof. I have no contract with VCS and did not commit any contravention.

The pre-court letter 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.

Would you be willing in this instance to settle or withdraw this claim, rather than go through with further CMD and potentially an evidential hearing?

Thank you for your time

I can't tell you how grateful I am for this - thank you so much. I will keep this thread updated.

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

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!

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

I've also completed the response form on the portal - will see what happens now!