DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77546--------------------------------------------------
Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: June 21, 2025, 5:50 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?
#Post#: 77554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: RichardW
Date: June 22, 2025, 12:46 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,
#Post#: 77556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: June 22, 2025, 2:24 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78278--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: June 26, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RichardW link ---
>
> 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,
>
--- End Quote ---
Here's the letter they sent over.It seems like its just a demand
for money. (attached below)
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 78339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: June 26, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96191--------------------------------------------------
So anxious - have received Notice of Claim from Solicitor over
private PCN that I ignored
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: October 30, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I posted back in June
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/scotland-solicitor-letter-threatening-sheriff-court-for-pcn/msg78278/#msg78278<br
/>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
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FHvIUtxOYPBAlctq5YfVJ4rmk9EBa5Du/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 96212--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show us the complete pack you have received. Only redact
your personal information.
#Post#: 96214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 12:50 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.
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 96215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 30, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Firstly, you were not the driver. And they know it.
--- End Quote ---
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
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 96218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 30, 2025, 1:21 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…”
--- End Quote ---
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).
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page