Erroneous French speeding ticket

[219]

Don't be too smug. Keeper Liability for private parking tickets is enshrined in the Transport (Scotland) Bill, that received Royal Assent on 15th November.

That is irrelevant - the difference in law I was referring to is the effectiveness of signage : in Scotland , in order to have any legal standing , a sign has to be pointed out to a person , and acknowledged , before it has any standing in law . simply putting up signs in a car park is not enough in Scotland .

 

[st13phil]

That is irrelevant - the difference in law I was referring to is the effectiveness of signage

I look forward to your test case

 

[219]

No need , cases have been thrown out many times .

 

[st13phil]

So why would the Transport (Scotland) 2019 Act go to the effort of establishing Keeper Liability for private parking transgressions if charges levied for those transgressions were always going to be unenforceable due to a unique interpretation of contract law? It makes no sense.

 

[st13phil]

No need , cases have been thrown out many times .

I would suggest that you do a bit of research, in particular the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carly Mackie. Signage can, and does, form a contract under Scottish law, as Ms. Mackie learned to her cost.

A summary of the (Scottish) legal position is given here.

 

[l5foye]

I wonder in the Carly Mackie case how the cost got to £24500.

 

[Stratman]

...................................

a sign has to be pointed out to a person , and acknowledged , before it has any standing in law.
.....................

Does this mean all car parks must have a human attendant to do the pointing out and receive the acknowledgement?

 

[DSM10000]

I would suggest that you do a bit of research, in particular the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carly Mackie. Signage can, and does, form a contract under Scottish law, as Ms. Mackie learned to her cost.

A summary of the (Scottish) legal position is given here.

What we have is an arrogant and stupid person was fully aware of the signage, fully aware of the requirement to hold a valid permit to park there, was offered and refused a permit and now thinks that the law does not apply to her!

Perhaps the £24K plus costs will focus her mind next time.

 

[st13phil]

What we have is an arrogant and stupid person was fully aware of the signage

Quite.

While she’s clearly a fool, the case turned on the fact that properly worded and displayed signage can and does form a parking contract, regardless of whether English or Scottish law is applied - despite what some choose to believe.

 

[st13phil]

I wonder in the Carly Mackie case how the cost got to £24500.

Because she believed “some bloke on t’internet” who said that signage couldn’t form a contract under Scottish law, and repeatedly carried out an act which carried a defined contractual charge?

 

[st13phil]

Does this mean all car parks must have a human attendant to do the pointing out and receive the acknowledgement?

No.

 

[219]

I would suggest that you do a bit of research, in particular the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carly Mackie. Signage can, and does, form a contract under Scottish law, as Ms. Mackie learned to her cost.

A summary of the (Scottish) legal position is given here.

In that particular case Ms Mackie had a dialogue with the company , thereby acknowledging that she had seen and then ignored the signs , that was her downfall .

 

[219]

Does this mean all car parks must have a human attendant to do the pointing out and receive the acknowledgement?

Yes , or some other means of PROVING that the alleged transgressor was aware of the signage BEFORE any alleged contravention took place .
Mere presence of signs is not enough to form a contract : not just for parking ; the person could be a non English speaking visitor , dyslexic , illiterate , blind ...

The only signs bearing weight in law are those put up by local or national authorities and which you agree to abide by when you sign your driving licence .

Private signage does not constitute a contract unless your attention is drawn to it and you agree to enter into said contract .

 

[219]

No.

Only in English law , not in Scotland

 

[219]

Does this mean all car parks must have a human attendant to do the pointing out and receive the acknowledgement?

Many of them do , for just that reason .’

Unless they speak to you before you leave your car , and have the opportunity to avoid any penalty, the process fails .

 

[219]

Quite.

While she’s clearly a fool, the case turned on the fact that properly worded and displayed signage can and does form a parking contract, regardless of whether English or Scottish law is applied - despite what some choose to believe.

No , it turned on the fact that she had a dialogue with the company , and they were able to demonstrate that she had been made aware of said signage then chose to ignore it .

 

[markjay]

..the person could be a non English speaking visitor , dyslexic , illiterate , blind ....

 

[st13phil]

In that particular case Ms Mackie had a dialogue with the company , thereby acknowledging that she had seen and then ignored the signs , that was her downfall .

I believe you’re mis-reading the case.

By her communication with the parking company Ms Mackie identified herself as the driver, or in other words the person who had (should have) read the signs which formed the contract, but chose to ignore them. Had she not made that admission, VCS would have had no evidence that she had parked the vehicle in contravention of their contractual regulations and the case would have fallen. In that context you’re correct that there has to be some evidence (not acknowledgement) that the person parking the vehicle had seen (or more precisely, should have seen) the signage. By making the admission herself that she was the driver who parked, she provided that evidence, however it could just as easily have been provided by a third party who witnessed her park her car, or by a CCTV image from which she could be identified.

In other words, by the presence of the signage a contract is formed; the only question is who that contract is formed with. This is no different in English or Scottish law.

This is the reason that the Transport (Scotland) 2019 Act includes a provision to transfer liability to the Keeper of the vehicle, so that if the driver (the only relevant person who could have actually seen the signage and thus have entered into the contract) is not identified, then the parking provider can chase the Keeper instead.

While I dislike private parking companies that engage in predatory and/or dubious practices to make money, simply making bold claims that their invoices (for that’s what they are) are universally unenforceable and can be ignored is dangerous advice.

 

[219]

In other words, by the presence of the signage a contract is formed; the only question is who that contract is formed with. This is no different in English or Scottish law.

The whole point is that this DOES differ between Scots and English law .

Simply erecting a sign does not constitute a contract in Scots Law - a contract has to be agreed on by all parties concerned before it can be entered into .

It matters not whether I have seen it or even read it , until I accept and agree to any terms and acknowledge same , no contract exists .

I have had these speculative invoices in the past , and they always go straight in the bin since the private companies have no power to enforce them .

Council parking regulations and penalty charge notices are , of course , entirely different because they have the force of law behind them .

 

[Riva811]

A few weeks ago we received a French speeding ticket. The numberplate correlates with a car we own, BUT we weren’t in France at the time, we hadn’t lent it to anyone and have never taken that car to France. I responded stating this and asking to see the photographic evidence, assuming that either the plate has been cloned or the numberplate has been slightly mis-read by the camera, French numberplates being similar to ours in layout (AB123CD as opposed to our AB12CDE).

I phoned the police but they advised doing nothing until or unless it was proven that the numberplate had been cloned, not least because we’d keep getting mistaken for the cloned vehicle on ANPR systems. They strongly suggested getting hold of a copy of the photo.

I assumed we’d hear nothing more but a few days ago we received an email saying they reject our claim because of ‘non-compliance with at least one of the mandatory rules prescribed by Articles 529-10 and 530 of the Code of Civil Procedure’ i.e:

• ‘No deposit made’ – they seem to expect us to pay the fine even if we then contest it, as far as I can see. (By ‘deposit’ they actually mean the total amount of the fine, amusing though it would otherwise have been to pay, say, I cent.)
• ‘Absence of supporting document (complaint form, proof of payment, emergency, death certificate etc.).’ – I don’t know where to begin with this one

Guilty until proven innocent it would seem.

I can’t find anything similar on the net, but will reply, asking (again) to see the photographic evidence (especially given what I was told by the British police) and for some more information about the complaint form they mentioned.

Does anyone on here know anything about Articles 529-10 and 530 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Does it really mean we have to pay the fine first? What if we couldn’t afford to?

Can the French authorities collude with the British ones to force me to pay the fine, even though we will subsequently be proven innocent?

Sorry to go on, but any advice gratefully received.

So what was the outcome of this mess? They need to show you evidence, what they are attempting with the "forms" is to make you admit one way or the other. I would suggest getting a lawyer to send a letter requesting for evidence before you pay any money.