As a general rule, a keeper cannot be sued in an English court for an alleged contractual debt arising from an incident in Scotland, unless specific conditions are met. Under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, contractual disputes are generally handled in the jurisdiction where the alleged contract was formed or the incident occurred. If the alleged contravention took place in Scotland, the proper jurisdiction is Scottish law, and any court action should be initiated in Scotland.
Although the keeper now resides in England, this does not automatically shift jurisdiction to England for an alleged debt originating in Scotland. The claimant (ECP) would need to establish that an English court has jurisdiction. This is challenging if the alleged breach occurred entirely in Scotland, where keeper liability does not apply.
As the alleged debt arises from a consumer contract (e.g., parking terms and conditions), jurisdiction is based on the location of the contract’s formation or performance. Since the alleged parking event occurred in Scotland, Scottish jurisdiction would apply.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (which allows keeper liability in England and Wales) does not apply in Scotland. If ECP cannot identify the driver (they can't), they cannot hold the keeper liable. This undermines the basis for suing the keeper in any jurisdiction.
Even if ECP wanted to pursue the case in England, the defendant (the keeper) could challenge jurisdiction, arguing that the claim must be heard in Scotland. This would likely result in the case being dismissed.
Pursuing a cross-border claim from Scotland to England would be costly for ECP, particularly given the lack of keeper liability in Scotland. This means that ECP would never attempt to sue in England over a Scottish incident.
If proceedings are initiated, you would file a jurisdictional challenge to have the case dismissed or transferred to Scotland. However, even if this were for a case in England, this bottom-dwelling duo, ECP and DCB Legal, would eventually discontinue as long as the claim is defended.
In the meantime, you can safely ignore DCBL. They are acting as a debt collector and are powerless to do anything. Under no circumstances must you communicate with a debt collector. They are powerless and not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. Ignore.
Should DCB Legal (not DCBL) send you a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and we will give you a suitable response which would direct them to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).