private charge notice

[Sandyn]

I got one of these recently, but wasn't driving the car. I am the keeper. I genuinely don't know who was driving. I know the circumstances, it was a genuine misunderstanding of where a permit was valid for, but the appeal on that basis was rejected. After doing a lot of research, reading lots of incorrect/out of date information and apparently unclear information on the Citizens Advice Scotland site, it seems that the law has changed recently. If the driver is not known, the keeper becomes liable for any charges, so these private parking companies have now much more power than before. Since I was not the driver, there are no ways to appeal on any of the independent appeals facilities. If they take the keeper to court, they will probably win.....unless anyone has better info??

 

[Rorschach]

Need more detailed information on the circumstances really. I find it very odd you don't know who was driving your car etc.

I have won a case through POPLA here in England but whether my appeal method would work for you is another matter.

 

[Sandyn]

I have three cars used by family members. I don't know who was driving, and I don't really want to know. I can truthfully say I do not know. I am under no obligation to find out or if I did know. I am not legally obliged to say. At one time that would have prevented the PCN from proceeding legally. Now as the keeper, I think I'm stuffed!!
Since I wasn't the driver. None of the appeals such as POPLA are open to me.

 

[Droogs]

If you can prove you were at a location where it would be impossible for you to be responsible/involved in the car being where it was and can genuinnely claim to be unable to identify or provide a list of possible drivers then wait until it goes to court and ensure that your laywer is able to appear and prove this. The case will probably be found in your favour especially if you show evidence that this has been communicated tot he company. It does mean that if the driver is found they will then be liable to a "taking without permission" charge by the local plod

 

[Rorschach]

Hmmm, well yes I think you are stuffed. Appealing might well be more cost and hassle than just paying up. Try negotiating with the company, I have heard it can be very successful.

 

[paulrbarnard]

You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle in the day. You are can not be expected to know by the minute. By providing the list you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I have a ticket dripped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers.

Edit: That was typed on my iphone half awake. Here is the English translation
You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle on the day. You can not be expected to know the driver minute by minute. By providing the list of possible drivers you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I had a ticket dropped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers.

 

[flh801978]

Why shouldnt you or whoever trangressed pay?
you or your unknown parked without authority or payment on someones private land
you were caught
pay up like a man

 

[Sandyn]

The driver had permission to drive the car. Basically I provide a car for two people to use. I never use it. The parking company has the upper hand since the law changed in Scotland. I can't see any way out. So far, I have just provided all the information I have. I was not the driver and I genuinely don't know. They haven't asked me for any other information. Now they are making the 'reasonable assumption' that I was the driver.
I don't understand why they just don't say per Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 Section 95, they now have the right to recover any unpaid charges from the keeper.

 

[Sandyn]

parked without authority or payment on someones private land
you were caught
pay up like a man

Thanks for your advice. I have of course considered this, but they have to prove to me that they have the right under Scottish law to charge for it. If they do, then it will be paid, but until they make that 100% clear. I will resist all attempts by them to pay me the charge. It looks as if they have, but so far they haven't gone down that route, which is why I am querying it. These PCN companies have a history of making mistakes and getting things wrong. I am just exercising my rights to defend the charge and asking for advice of anyone had been in a similar situation.

 

[marcros]

I would ask the family for volunteers as to who was there and got it. Then either get the guilty culprit to pay it or do so yourself. Either way, pay it and move on.

 

[Distinterior]

I have always been under the impression that the "Keeper" of the vehicle is ultimately responsible in the UK, for any parking fines incurred by that vehicle if the ACTUAL authorised driver at the time could not be identified or wasn't prepared to admit they had parked there.

If you're saying that it's not physically possible that one of your authorized family members could have parked there on that date, that's a different matter, but trying to split legal hairs to avoid liability is only going to cost you/ your family member more money & inconvenience in the long run.

 

[TheUnicorn]

From what you've said you don't have any real grounds not to pay, so pay up and move on. closed book

 

[Sandyn]

Either way, pay it and move on.

I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay.

You can provide a list of possible drivers who used the vehicle in the day. You are can not be expected to know by the minute. By providing the list you have fulfilled your obligation. They can then contact all the drivers if they wish. I have a ticket dripped in this situation, even though I was one of the possible drivers

Thank you...interesting to know.

I have done a bit more digging.
The circumstances are that the the car was parked at an adjacent block of flats because the resident had to give up their parking while work was being done on their block of flats (cladding). A permit was issued and displayed, to allow parking on that street, but at a different place to where the car was parked. This was not easy to decipher from the permit documentation. No diagrams only block numbers.. The same company monitor the parking at all flats in the area, so the same sign is up everywhere. It was reasonable for the driver to assume that they could park there, because the parking sign did not clearly identify that there were in fact different parking rules for different blocks of flats and there is nothing to easily identify the blocks of flats. The parking sign was not clear enough in this instance. Each sign should say which block of flats that particular sign applies to. I think this is reasonable grounds to appeal, but it's the driver who has to do that.

 

[Stan]

The resident of the flats will know who it was who visited them. They are under no obligation to say, of course.

 

[Distinterior]

I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay.


Thank you...interesting to know.

I have done a bit more digging.
The circumstances are that the the car was parked at an adjacent block of flats because the resident had to give up their parking while work was being done on their block of flats (cladding). A permit was issued and displayed, to allow parking on that street, but at a different place to where the car was parked. This was not easy to decipher from the permit documentation. No diagrams only block numbers.. The same company monitor the parking at all flats in the area, so the same sign is up everywhere. It was reasonable for the driver to assume that they could park there, because the parking sign did not clearly identify that there were in fact different parking rules for different blocks of flats and there is nothing to easily identify the blocks of flats. The parking sign was not clear enough in this instance. Each sign should say which block of flats that particular sign applies to. I think this is reasonable grounds to appeal, but it's the driver who has to do that.

That is all interesting information Sandyn and they may well be valid reasons for the actual drivers defence if the actual driver decides to challenge the PCN in court,.....But, it has no bearing on the fact that it is your ultimate responsibility & therefore liability to pay the fine as the keeper of the vehicle if the actual driver at the time is not willing to admit they were the one who parked the car there.....

 

[Just4Fun]

I have always been under the impression that the "Keeper" of the vehicle is ultimately responsible in the UK, for any parking fines incurred by that vehicle if the ACTUAL authorised driver at the time could not be identified or wasn't prepared to admit they had parked there.

I wondered about that a few years ago when in the UK and I drove a vehicle that I think would fall through the net. The owner of the vehicle had died but probate had not yet been granted so the new owner/keeper of the vehicle was unknown. The most likely new owner/keeper was the spouse of the deceased, someone who did not hold and had never held a driving licence. The insurance policy on the vehicle was in the name "The estate of ....". The registration document was still in the name of the deceased. What would have happened if I, or anyone else who drove the vehicle at that time, had got a speeding fine, parking fine, bus lane fine or whatever? Who would have been asked to name the driver? Who could be held responsible if the driver could not be identified? In a way it is a shame tht nobody driving the car received any penalties as it would have been interesting to see how it played out.

 

[Distinterior]

@Just4Fun,
In the UK, the "Keeper" of the vehicle is not necessarily the "Owner" of the vehicle, and does not even need to have a driving licence, so in your scenario,....I havent got a clue!!!! I would hazzard a guess that it would be the deceased's Spouse....?

 

[Just4Fun]

It does mean that if the driver is found they will then be liable to a "taking without permission" charge by the local plod

Why would that be? If Sandyn's wife and 15 kids all have permission to use the vehicle, and all could legally do so, the driver could indeed be unknown to but authorised by Sandyn and "taking without permission" would not apply.

 

[Droogs]

I mentioned it as he had not said he could provide a list of authorised drivers.

 

[Jameshow]

I will do that when I am 100% certain they have done everything by the book, the driver will pay.


Thank you...interesting to know.

I have done a bit more digging.
The circumstances are that the the car was parked at an adjacent block of flats because the resident had to give up their parking while work was being done on their block of flats (cladding). A permit was issued and displayed, to allow parking on that street, but at a different place to where the car was parked. This was not easy to decipher from the permit documentation. No diagrams only block numbers.. The same company monitor the parking at all flats in the area, so the same sign is up everywhere. It was reasonable for the driver to assume that they could park there, because the parking sign did not clearly identify that there were in fact different parking rules for different blocks of flats and there is nothing to easily identify the blocks of flats. The parking sign was not clear enough in this instance. Each sign should say which block of flats that particular sign applies to. I think this is reasonable grounds to appeal, but it's the driver who has to do that.

Sounds a pretty good case tbh.

Cheers James