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.
