Some of the judges words from the case (notably these have been omitted from most 'reporting', which these days seems to be a very small step removed from 'clickbait'

"She knew perfectly well what the signs displayed, and that she was parking in breach of the conditions.

She stated that (effectively a protest position) that parking charges were illegal and unenforceable in Scotland and that she could park where she liked as her father's guest.

The defender is not the tenant. The defender's car was an additional burden on the parking facilities and she was the same as any other interloper.

She was offered a permit by the factors (at a reasonable charge I think) but she refused on principle."

She knew exactly what she was doing, and carried on regardless. The permit offered to her was at a cost of £40 per month, she repeatedly refused.

Eventually, they got fed up with her, and took her to court. Where they won - because it was clearly signed as private property, and a fee or permit was required to park there.

Edited by RobJP on 04/04/2017 at 20:59

@RobJP

Do you have a link to written judgement? Looked on Courts Scotland and Bailii but couldn't find it.

No, though I did read a couple of considerably more 'facty-based reporting' articles on it yesterday.

A good article on it was that of the BBC, which actually goes into 'What does the law say', and makes it pretty clear that this is not just Scotland-based.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-394...3

Basically, park on private property that is adequately signed, and you agree to the contract - which is then enforcable in law.