Van driver fails in appeal against parking charges for parking in private car park

A van driver who received no fewer than 22 penalty charge notices after parking his vehicle in a private car park without a permit will have to pay the fines imposed after losing an appeal.

 

The Sheriff Appeal Court refused the appeal after dismissing the appellant’s challenge to the admissibility of evidence and rejecting his claim that the private company which carried out enforcement services in the car park and had installed signage there did not have title to sue.

 

 

Appeal Sheriff Nigel Ross heard that the appellant Craig Laird parked his Ford Transit van in a private car park on Brown Street, Dundee on 22 occasions between April 2013 and April 2014. 

 

In the car park signage was prominently displayed and informed that this was private property, that parking was reserved for the holders of valid parking permits, and that there was a parking charge of £100 a day for those without a permit. 

 

Mr Laird did not hold a valid permit, but undeterred, he parked his van and did not pay the 22 resulting penalty charges issued to him. 

 

The pursuer Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCSL) raised an action seeking payment.

 

Before the sheriff, Mr Laird claimed he had been told he could use the car park, that he had not seen any of the signs, that he could not remember receiving any tickets, and that the van was parked on 18 of the 22 occasions by a friend, who failed to inform him of the parking tickets, but the sheriff did not accept any of his evidence.

 

Mr Laird appealed, arguing that while there may have been a contract - or 22 contracts - between VCSL and Mr Laird, it had not been proved that VCSL had authority from the landowner Home Group Scotland (HGS) to act as parking supervisor or to issue penalty notices.

 

However, the appeal court noted that the sheriff had heard oral evidence from a VCSL director, which was accepted as credible and reliable, that (i) VCSL had a licence from HGS to administer the parking arrangements at the locus; (ii) that VCSL regarded HGS, rightly or wrongly, as the relevant landowner; (iii) that they had received a letter in the last year from HGS (or rather Home in Scotland Limited) confirming that VCSL were the appointed managers for parking purposes; and (iv) that the contract had been operated for many months by VCSL without difficulty.

 

 

In his written opinion, Appeal Sheriff Ross said: “There was accordingly sufficient evidence to conclude that VCSL had the authority to act. It was not primary evidence. It was secondary and hearsay evidence. It proved to be sufficient for the purpose. The sheriff was entitled to accept on the balance of probabilities that HGS, or Home in Scotland Limited, had appointed VCSL to administer the car park at the locus. 

 

“That finding cannot be described as illogical. It cannot be described as unsupported by evidence. It appears, in fact, to be the only logical conclusion in the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities. 

 

“Once this evidential burden was satisfied by VCSL, it was for the appellant to challenge VCSL’s position, whether by leading evidence, or by submission in law, or by advancing competing inferences. The appellant did not make any successful challenge, either at proof, or on appeal. The evidence led, minimal though it was, remained undisturbed. There was a sufficiency of evidence.”

 

While the licence to occupy and a subsequent letter referred to the granter as Home Group Scotland, Home Scotland, Scotland Home Group and Home in Scotland Limited, this could be “reconciled as a use of different trading names by a single company”.

 

And a further argument by the appellant that the pursuer and respondent failed to show that the 2013 contract was granted by the heritable proprietor was described as “misconceived”.

 

“The granter need not be the heritable proprietor. The granter of the licence only requires to have a right to grant the licence. That right can be less than absolute ownership,” Sheriff Ross said.

 

 

It was also submitted by the appellant that, because none of the respondent’s productions had been certified in terms of section 5 of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 as forming part of the records of a business, they needed to be spoken to by a witness. 

 

The relevant productions comprised photographs of the locus and the van, and also the 2013 contract, but the only witness for the respondent had not been present when these productions were made. 

 

Similarly, none of the productions were certified as copies and were therefore “inadmissible” as evidence. 

 

The sheriff should not, it was argued, have accepted the evidence of the technical director who was not present at the signing of the 2013 contract, or party to the taking of photographs and other evidence. 

 

It was submitted that the evidence was “insufficient” to allow the sheriff to draw inferences that the van was parked, that the contract existed and so on, and that section 6 of the 1988 Act meant that a photocopy without authentication was merely “a blank piece of paper”.

 

Repelling the appellant’s submissions, the court observed that the effect of sections 5 and 6 of the 1988 Act were “permissive”, and that they allowed “short-cuts” to be taken to “minimise” the need to lead evidence.

 

Appeal Sheriff Ross said: “The sheriff did not require to rely on the 2013 contract. It was sufficient, as discussed above, that he accepted, as credible and reliable, oral evidence from an official of VCSL that VCSL had been appointed, by some means, for the purpose of regulating parking at the locus. In relation to photographs and signage, the sheriff was entitled to rely on the same oral evidence. 

 

“In circumstances where the sheriff was given no reason to doubt the origin or accuracy of that evidence, it was capable of amounting to sufficient evidence.”