Scotland - PCN escalated to Sherriff Court CMD, potential evidential hearing!

[DeepTulip]

Hi there

I posted on another forum about this and got some great advice but the thread seems to have gone 'cold' with no replies, but there have been some developments. Here's the current situation:

PCN issued in March 2025 - I am the keeper but wasn't the driver at the time. 
I ignored all the correspondence until suddenly I received a notice of Simple Procedure from the Sherriff Court. 
I disputed their claim and attended a case management discussion call last month. 
The solicitor (Pollock Fairbridge) did not attend the call but gave notice that they were unavailable. 
The Sherriff suggested I just pay the original principal sum of £100 to get this settled, but I said I'd prefer not to as I was not the driver and therefore not liable. 
The Sherriff warned that if we didn't settle, this could go to an evidential hearing. 
Another case management discussion has been scheduled for March 'to give both parties time to come to an agreement'. 

I emailed PF to ask them to withdraw the claim as I was not the driver. I received the following response:

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.

...Do I just double down and let them get to evidential hearing (would that involve legal costs?) 

I genuinely was not in the car at the time, so I don't see how they can provide evidence that I was? 

The 'evidence' they attached is copies of their correspondence (demands for money) and a photo of the car - no signs in the photo. And a copy of the wording in the car park on signage. 

I'm actually fuming, as their response is so snotty and describes the £160 as the 'principal sum' when actually that's the combination of their 'fine' plus a £60 'debt recovery fee' 

Any thoughts welcome!

[b789]

Hi @DeepTulip. Welcome to the forum. I remember the case from the FTLA forum.

You need to calm this down mentally first, because nothing in that update changes the underlying legal position.

1. You were not the driver.
   
2. There is no keeper liability in Scotland.
   
3. Their entire case depends on proving that you were driving.
   
4. Their “evidence” does not do that.
   

Let’s deal with the main points.

The Sheriff suggesting you “just pay the £100” was not a finding of liability. That is very common at CMD stage. Sheriffs are encouraged to explore settlement. It does not mean the court thinks you owe it. It simply means the court is trying to avoid a hearing for £100.

You were entitled to refuse. You are not liable if you were not the driver.

Now to Pollock Fairbridge’s email. First, calling £160 the “principal sum” is nonsense. The principal sum, if anything, is £100. The £60 is a fabricated add-on. They know that. The court knows that. Under a claim under £200, no expenses are recoverable unless you behave unreasonably. So their leverage is extremely limited.

Second, “we will seek an Evidential Hearing” is not a threat. It is just the next procedural step. An evidential hearing simply means both sides attend and the Sheriff hears evidence. It does not automatically mean you incur legal costs. In a claim under £200, there are no recoverable expenses unless a party acts unreasonably. So stop worrying about runaway legal costs. That does not exist here.

Third, their list of evidence is telling. Copies of their own demand letters, a photo of the car, and generic signage wording prove nothing about driver identity. A photo of a car does not identify a driver. Standard signage wording does not create a contract with someone who was not present.

If they go to an evidential hearing, the key question for the Sheriff will be simple:

"How do you prove that the Respondent was the driver?”

If they have no photo of you, no admission, no witness, and no evidence tying you to the driver’s seat, they are relying purely on inference. In Scotland, there is no presumption that keeper equals driver. The burden is entirely on them.

You should not name the driver. You are under no legal obligation to do so.

At the next CMD, you can calmly say:

"I was not the driver. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. There is no keeper liability in Scotland. I do not accept liability and I am prepared to defend the claim at an evidential hearing if necessary."

That is it. Keep repeating that. Do not get drawn into arguments about signage or contract unless and until they prove you were the person who parked.

As for settlement: if you pay £100 now, you are effectively conceding liability when you are not liable. That is your choice, but legally you have a strong position.

The only real risk here is time and inconvenience, not financial catastrophe. For a £160 claim under Simple Procedure, they cannot recover legal costs. They are spending far more pursuing this than they could ever recover. This looks like VCS testing whether you will blink.

If you genuinely were not the driver, then yes — double down calmly and let them try to prove something they cannot prove.

If they discontinue before the hearing, you can consider asking for expenses on the basis that the claim was raised without evidential foundation.

At this stage, you are still in a strong position.

[DeepTulip]

Hi @DeepTulip. Welcome to the forum. I remember the case from the FTLA forum.

You need to calm this down mentally first, because nothing in that update changes the underlying legal position.

1. You were not the driver.
   
2. There is no keeper liability in Scotland.
   
3. Their entire case depends on proving that you were driving.
   
4. Their “evidence” does not do that.
   

Let’s deal with the main points.

The Sheriff suggesting you “just pay the £100” was not a finding of liability. That is very common at CMD stage. Sheriffs are encouraged to explore settlement. It does not mean the court thinks you owe it. It simply means the court is trying to avoid a hearing for £100.

You were entitled to refuse. You are not liable if you were not the driver.

Now to Pollock Fairbridge’s email. First, calling £160 the “principal sum” is nonsense. The principal sum, if anything, is £100. The £60 is a fabricated add-on. They know that. The court knows that. Under a claim under £200, no expenses are recoverable unless you behave unreasonably. So their leverage is extremely limited.

Second, “we will seek an Evidential Hearing” is not a threat. It is just the next procedural step. An evidential hearing simply means both sides attend and the Sheriff hears evidence. It does not automatically mean you incur legal costs. In a claim under £200, there are no recoverable expenses unless a party acts unreasonably. So stop worrying about runaway legal costs. That does not exist here.

Third, their list of evidence is telling. Copies of their own demand letters, a photo of the car, and generic signage wording prove nothing about driver identity. A photo of a car does not identify a driver. Standard signage wording does not create a contract with someone who was not present.

If they go to an evidential hearing, the key question for the Sheriff will be simple:

"How do you prove that the Respondent was the driver?”

If they have no photo of you, no admission, no witness, and no evidence tying you to the driver’s seat, they are relying purely on inference. In Scotland, there is no presumption that keeper equals driver. The burden is entirely on them.

You should not name the driver. You are under no legal obligation to do so.

At the next CMD, you can calmly say:

"I was not the driver. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. There is no keeper liability in Scotland. I do not accept liability and I am prepared to defend the claim at an evidential hearing if necessary."

That is it. Keep repeating that. Do not get drawn into arguments about signage or contract unless and until they prove you were the person who parked.

As for settlement: if you pay £100 now, you are effectively conceding liability when you are not liable. That is your choice, but legally you have a strong position.

The only real risk here is time and inconvenience, not financial catastrophe. For a £160 claim under Simple Procedure, they cannot recover legal costs. They are spending far more pursuing this than they could ever recover. This looks like VCS testing whether you will blink.

If you genuinely were not the driver, then yes — double down calmly and let them try to prove something they cannot prove.

If they discontinue before the hearing, you can consider asking for expenses on the basis that the claim was raised without evidential foundation.

At this stage, you are still in a strong position.

Hi there, just a quick update to say that we have now gone to an evidential hearing in June. 

The Sherriff mentioned that the 'balance of probabilities' will be taken into account which I was a bit surprised at, as that intimates that evidence of my being in the vehicle will not be the only thing taken into account.

[b789]

@DeepTulip, the Sheriff referring to the “balance of probabilities” is entirely normal. That is the standard of proof in all civil cases in Scotland. It does not lower the bar to guesswork, and it does not mean the court can simply assume you were the driver.

What it means is that the Sheriff must decide whether it is more likely than not that you were the driver, based on actual evidence. The burden of proof remains entirely on the Claimant.

The key point is this: inference is allowed, but speculation is not.

The Claimant cannot succeed by simply asserting “the respondent parked the vehicle” and inviting the court to fill in the gaps. They must lead evidence that points to you personally being the driver. That could be an admission, a witness, clear identification, or some other cogent link. If they have none of that, they are asking the court to guess, which is not permitted.

The fact that you are the Registered Keeper is not, on its own, sufficient evidence. There is no legal presumption in Scots law that the Keeper is the driver. The Sheriff may consider it as part of the overall picture, but it is weak evidence unless supported by something more.

So the correct way to approach this is:

The Claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the driver. They have provided no evidence identifying the driver and rely only on the fact that you are the registered keeper. That is not sufficient to meet the required standard of proof.

You should not be concerned by the Sheriff mentioning the standard of proof. That is simply the legal test they must apply. It does not shift the burden onto you, and it does not mean the Claimant can win without evidence.

If anything, it frames the issue very clearly: the entire case turns on whether they can prove you were driving. Based on what you’ve described of their “evidence”, they cannot.

At the evidential hearing, stay focused on that single point. Do not get dragged into arguments about signage, terms, or the £60 unless and until they first establish that you were the driver. Without that, the rest of their case does not get off the ground.

When was the CMD? Who attended?