DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 27, 2026, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Correct.
You will get a court claim form in due course, N1SDT. Please
post just the front page with claim number, personal details and
password obscured when you do.
Your defence needs to be factual, in the face of their claim
that the driver of the car entered into a contract by reading
clear signs and accepting their terms by parking. DCB Legal
usually discontinue in the face of a defended claim, but you’ll
have to think of something to use as your defence in the first
place. One possible avenue could be to take pictures of the
signs and their location and see if this helps formulate a
defence.
#Post#: 120723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 4, 2026, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thanks for the advices so far, the Claim Form came through the
post this morning, see below. There are a few other pages of
response pack.
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/tph1bXwh[/img]
Based on the advices so far, I take I need to fill the defence
and counterclaim page? does it make any difference if I use the
paper form or the online form? anything specific I should be
mentioning?
I was unfortunately not able to go back to the parking for
picture of signage in the meantime, and Google street image is 4
years old and looks like before the parking was open... anything
else I should consider?
thanks in advance
#Post#: 120725--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 4, 2026, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Do not counterclaim, because if you do you will prevent DCB
Legal from discontinuing.
Use MCOL and do it all online
Feel free to post your proposed defence here for comments before
the deadline, which is 14+5 days from the date on the N1SDT form
unless you submit an Acknowledgement of Service by this date,
and if you file an AoS you get an additional 14 days for the
defence submission.
#Post#: 120946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 6, 2026, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, below my defence, based on a few similar cases I found
on this forum and some help from AI. Let me know if okay or any
advice to strenghten it.
1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the
sum claimed, or any sum at all. It is admitted that the
Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration xxxxxx on the
material date.
2. Sparse Particulars and Failure to Comply with Civil Procedure
Rules
2.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") on the Claim Form are
sparse, generic, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule
16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5.
2.2. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because the Claimant has failed to state the exact wording of
the contractual terms relied upon, or provide any itemized
breakdown showing how a single parking infraction calculates to
the arbitrary combined sum of £170.00 for "PC and damages".
2.3. The claim discloses no clear cause of action. The Defendant
submits that courts routinely strike out materially similar
private parking claims of their own initiative under CPR 3.4 for
failing to explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
3. Impossibility of Performance and Technical Barriers
3.1. The Defendant made a prompt, good-faith payment to purchase
a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s designated
RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session: 12:45–14:45).
3.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues
delayed the initial download and operation of the application.
3.3. Upon realizing an overstay would occur due to practical
delays handling young children and a dog on a beach visit, the
Defendant attempted to extend the session. However, the RingGo
application technically restricted any retrospective payments or
session extensions once the primary slot had lapsed.
3.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the
technical limitations of the Claimant’s own chosen payment
infrastructure, which failed to accommodate real-world network
constraints.
4. Mandatory Grace Periods and ANPR Deficiencies
4.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association
(BPA) and is strictly bound by its Code of Practice.
4.2. Section 13.1 mandates a "Consideration Period" (minimum 5
minutes) to enter, read signage, and complete a payment
contract. Section 13.3 mandates a "Grace Period" (minimum 10
minutes) at the end of a session to allow motorists to safely
vacate.
4.3. The vehicle passed the exit ANPR camera at 15:02,
establishing a net variance of 17 minutes past the paid session.
4.4. A significant portion of this time was spent physically
preparing a dog and young children for travel, and cleaning off
sand, within an entirely empty car park. The Claimant's
automated "gate-to-gate" ANPR timings fail to isolate actual
stationary parking duration from the mandatory consideration and
grace periods required to safely pack up and navigate the site.
5. Total Lack of Commercial Justification and Absence of Loss
5.1. The alleged incident occurred on a Monday. On this day, the
Turner Contemporary Art Gallery—to which this car park is
exclusively attached—was fully closed to the public.
5.2. Consequently, the car park was virtually vacant and
dormant. The Defendant's vehicle did not obstruct operations,
cause a nuisance, or prevent any other paying motorists from
parking.
5.3. Under the binding precedent of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67, a private parking charge must possess a "legitimate
interest" or "commercial justification" to be enforceable; it
cannot be an unconscionable penalty.
5.4. Demanding an exorbitant penalty for a minor overstay where
82% of the stay was fully paid for, in an empty car park serving
a closed facility, serves no legitimate management purpose. It
is an unenforceable penalty designed solely to extract
disproportionate profit.
6. Chronology of Correspondence and Settlement Offers
6.1. The Defendant has maintained a consistent dialogue and
acted reasonably throughout:Initial Appeal: Submitted on
15/09/2024, explicitly detailing the technical restrictions of
the RingGo app and poor local signal. Rejected by the Claimant
on 01/10/2024 via a generic template. POPLA Appeal: Lodged
subsequently, where the Defendant formally offered to pay the
tariff difference of £1.65 to cover the exact fractional
shortfall. This was refused on a purely rigid, factual automated
basis on 17/12/2024.
6.2. The Defendant relies upon this correspondence to
demonstrate a continuous good-faith willingness to settle the
true value of the stay, which the Claimant unreasonably refused
in pursuit of a windfall.
7. Unlawful Double Recovery and Abuse of Process
7.1. The Claimant has appended an arbitrary "damages" fee to the
original £100 parking charge to arrive at the demanded £170.00.
7.2. The Defendant avers that this inflation constitutes an
abuse of process. Such automated, artificial add-ons are
strictly disallowed under the BPA Code of Practice and the
principles set out in ParkingEye v Beavis. It represents a clear
attempt at double recovery for legal/debt services that are
already factored into the primary £100 charge. Numerous County
Courts routinely strike out claims in their entirety on this
basis.
8. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
8.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds the
requisite written contemporaneous landowner authority to
operate, issue charges, and pursue litigation in its own name at
this specific location.
9. Conclusion & Order Sought
9.1. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim
under CPR 3.4 as an abuse of process and having no real prospect
of success. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the
claim be dismissed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.1. fied by a statement of truth
without an honest belief in its truth.
#Post#: 120951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 6, 2026, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you show us the PoC? There's nothing showing in your post
above.
I think this makes some decent arguments. In my view the
strongest argument here is that you tried in good faith to pay
for your full stay before leaving, but were prevented from doing
so.
Some observations:
Code of Practice - Make sure you are referring to the correct
one for the date of the parking incident, if you haven't
already.
"2. Sparse Particulars and Failure to Comply with Civil
Procedure Rules" - Their particulars are rather sparse,but
saying that you are "unable to plead properly to the PoC" might
be a stretch. It might not appear particularly credible to say
that you are unable to plead properly, when you then go on to
make 6 defence points backed up by 17 sub-paragraphs of
argument. It's also clear that you are familiar with the nature
of the claim, as you are able to explain the exact circumstances
of parking on the day, and the exact trail of correspondence
between you and Smart that followed. I'd agree that the PoC are
vague, but I'm not convinced it's your strongest argument, so
I'd be minded not to lead with it.
4. Mandatory Grace Periods and ANPR Deficiencies - the
consideration period is a period within which a driver may leave
a car park if he does not agree with the terms, it's not an
additional period of free parking added to your stay, you may
need to amend the wording here. Also, one of the inherent
'weaknesses' of ANPR is that it records time in and out, not
time parked, as you note, but this is one of the reasons there
is a grace period.
--- Quote ---
> 4.4. A significant portion of this time was spent physically
preparing a dog and young children for travel, and cleaning off
sand, within an entirely empty car park.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure this is particularly relevant to your argument, as
the vehicle presumably remained parked whilst you cleaned off
sand and got the children/dog ready. If anything it undermines
your broader argument about the function of ANPR, as you accept
that the vehicle was parked for much of the alleged overstay.
5. Total Lack of Commercial Justification and Absence of Loss -
I'm not sure this is a particularly compelling argument. I think
one could argue for there being a relatively clear commercial
justification for a deterrent charge in the event of someone
failing to pay the correct amount for their stay. The landowner
would seem to have an obvious "legitimate interest" in making
sure that people pay the tariff that corresponds to the length
of their stay. I note your point around 82% of the stay being
paid for, to which the obvious counter is "when should
enforcement begin?". The argument here risks looking like you
are asking the court to take the position that motorists need
only pay for 82% of their parking.
Spelling - minor point, but I'd change to British English.
Once we've seen the PoC we may be able to offer further input.
#Post#: 120953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 6, 2026, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks a lot for this, very valid feedfack, I will revise
accordingly.
I thought I inserted the Claim form in my previous post, but
obviously not! see below and let me know if any further advice!
HTML https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL
HTML https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL
[img width=600]
HTML https://ibb.co/9kBGcfJL[/img]
#Post#: 120955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 6, 2026, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, so
22 June to submit defence or Acknowledgement of Service
6 July to submit defence if AoS submitted in time
Plenty of time.
The Particulars of Claim are rubbish, as usual, but this may not
be your best primary defence point, just one of the additional
points you will make.
#Post#: 120998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 7, 2026, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have examples of their evidence e.g. actual signs which
formed the contract whose breach is the basis of their claim
etc?
Your first posts now show 'attachment does not exist'.
In any event, you are defending their 'claim' and IMO would do
well to see this in its fullest sense i.e. it's not just about
whether and under what circumstances there might have been a
breach.
As I understand it, their claim is for £279.92 and you do not
have the option of choosing to pay part. So, what does their
claim comprise?
Parking charge of £100 plus 'debt recovery' costs of £70 and
then an unspecified sum of £24.92 which represents what,
interest at the rate of ** from when, pre or post the POPLA
decision, their LoC, service of the claim form? Who knows?
Pursuit of the charge is in their court and IMO there's no
reason to claim 'interest' (if at all) until after the court
claim is served. Process delays are theirs, not yours.
So, even if there was a basis for £100, which you dispute, then
what's the justification for the rest? Fertile ground for
considering what you might include in a defence against the
'claim' I would have thought.
#Post#: 121467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 11, 2026, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Do you have examples of their evidence e.g. actual signs which
formed the contract whose breach is the basis of their claim
etc?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
SmartParking had provided some pictures of signs to POPLA, but
since POPLA decision is over a year I don't have access to them
anymore, and as I shared previously, I have not been able to go
back to take picture...
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
>
> Parking charge of £100 plus 'debt recovery' costs of £70 and
then an unspecified sum of £24.92 which represents what,
interest at the rate of ** from when, pre or post the POPLA
decision, their LoC, service of the claim form? Who knows?
Pursuit of the charge is in their court and IMO there's no
reason to claim 'interest' (if at all) until after the court
claim is served. Process delays are theirs, not yours.
>
> So, even if there was a basis for £100, which you dispute,
then what's the justification for the rest? Fertile ground for
considering what you might include in a defence against the
'claim' I would have thought.
>
--- End Quote ---
this is a very valid point, I will add to my defence. thanks!
#Post#: 121473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 11, 2026, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any representations which you make should be in the 3rd person.
Do not assume that they will join the dots and work out that you
admitted being the driver.
Write purely as the vehicle keeper.
So you will say, "The driver paid x for parking" etc
Can you post up the original PCN?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page