DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: December 3, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> It's asking me to "request access", you need to change the
share options to make it publicly viewable.
>
--- End Quote ---
Have updated access now - thanks for flagging!
#Post#: 100895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Deeptulip link ---
>
> I don't want to tell them that I know who was driving or name
them, but don't want to be obstructive either!
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 100899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: December 3, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't tell you how grateful I am for this - thank you so much.
I will keep this thread updated.
#Post#: 107841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: January 29, 2026, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update following the CMD. So nobody from VCS or Pollok Fairbidge
showed but there was someone on the call who appeared to be
speaking on their behalf, who said they couldnt attend as they
were juggling four different cases today.
They suggested that as it was a small amount I should just
settle the matter and the Sheriff asked me if I was happy with
that, eg that I would just pay the £100. I said no, as the claim
was falsely based on the assumption that I was the driver of the
vehicle.
The Sheriff said that this was an evidential matter and that the
next step would be to progress to an evidential hearing unless
we were willing to settle something. I said I would be happy to
hear from Pollok Fairbridge to have a meaningful conversation.
A further CMD has been set for March in case we have not
resolved by then.
#Post#: 108313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Daim456
Date: February 1, 2026, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member]
This may not matter in this case but for future reference that
this legislation Simple Procedure (Limits on Award of Expenses)
Order 2016 has been updated that expenses are not normally
allowed for claim under £300.
It has been increased from £200 to £300.
#Post#: 108927--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=Deeptulip link=topic=6924.msg100853#msg100853
date=1764768804]
> I don't want to tell them that I know who was driving or name
them, but don't want to be obstructive either!
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
[/quote]
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
#Post#: 109632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: February 12, 2026, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Latest response from solicitor:
Thank you for your email.
If you wish to settle this claim then our client will accept
the principal sum, being £160.00.
If we are unable to agree settlement then our client has
instructed that we continue with the claim. At the next Case
Management Discussion we will seek an Evidential Hearing.
In the meantime, we attach a List of Evidence which we are
lodging with Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
The 'evidence' is copies of their letters and a photo of my car,
with no signage in the background.
#Post#: 109633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 12, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have presumably offered no evidence as to who was driving?
#Post#: 109635--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: Deeptulip
Date: February 12, 2026, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s correct.
#Post#: 110004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Scotland - solicitor letter threatening sheriff court for
PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 16, 2026, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Then I'm not sure how they intend to demonstrate they have any
case against someone who has repeatedly stated they were not
driving.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page