Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just wanted to update here and say that PF solicitors are not backing down, we have an 'evidential hearing' in June. Their so called evidence is a blurry photo of the car (no signage visible in the photo, the car could have been anywhere) and copies of their correspondence to me.

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

Most of us are not fully conversant with Scottish Law but I would make the following points on the basis that the differences generally relate to specific legislation - the Scottish system will still be based on the principles of law we are familiar with.

The first thing to reinforce is the fact that it is up to VCS to provide the evidence which shows that you were the driver.

You were not the driver so VCS will not have any evidence.

In the legal system the Defendant should not be asked to prove innocence in a situation where no evidence is offered against them - it is important that you make this point to the Sheriff at a very early stage.

VCS love to claim that the keeper was the driver on the grounds of 'reasonable assumption' but it is important that you point out that this is not 'evidence' but purely a 'commercial decision' on the part of the Claimant - once the Claimant reaches Court they still have to prove their case as anyone else would need to.

You are within your rights to answer questions purely relating to the evidence which VCS does provide - the VCS representative will almost certainly (after recognising how weak their case is) attempt to get you to provide a defence for evidence which they have not presented.

You are in such a strong position with this case that you can control the hearing.

Keep the ball firmly in the Claimant's court by consistently asking them for the evidence which shows that you were the driver - don't worry if you have to ask this question a dozen times - you're simply showing the Sheriff how ridiculous this claim is.

You may find it useful to download and print out VCS v Edward which can be found at the following link;

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w0k19zxzlpf9eumu68u7b/VCS-v-EDWARDS-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=5t2gilebrjx7g0d6jmy32lou4&e=2&dl=0

Print out four copies.

You can draw the Sheriff's attention to paragraph 34 onwards.

This again reinforces the two key facts that matter most;

1) That no assumption can be made that the keeper was the driver.

And

2) That there is no legal requirement for the vehicle keeper to nominate the driver to a private parking contractor when the law does not require it.



Hope this helps.

Stay strong - you've got this.

Opening caveat that my experience is likewise from South of Hadrian's Wall.

The first thing to reinforce is the fact that it is up to VCS to provide the evidence which shows that you were the driver.

You were not the driver so VCS will not have any evidence.

I'm not sure if your points were made in order but if they were I'd swap these two round. Whilst it's true that it is for the claimant to prove their case with their evidence, there is in my view no harm in leading with evidence of your own, namely your repeated statements that you were not driving.

My thinking here is that if you introduce right from the start positive evidence in the form of your repeated assertions that you were not driving, it kills any 'reasonable assumption' argument before they've even had chance to make it.