DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 11, 2026, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks, I have filed an AOS and will rework the defence
following all these advices above.
Attached the original PCN,
HTML https://ibb.co/3mM24Wgd
HTML https://ibb.co/3mM24Wgd
HTML https://ibb.co/6JcfnMD7
HTML https://ibb.co/6JcfnMD7
Don't hesitate to flag anything else I could use.
I will repost the final defence in a few days here .
thanks all
#Post#: 123115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 27, 2026, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for the help so far.
See below my revised defence based on all previous feedback.
anything I missed?
1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the
sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Defendant is the registered
keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx.
2. Impossibility of Performance and Frustration of Contract
2.1. The driver acted entirely in good faith, proactively
purchasing a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s
designated RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session:
12:45–14:45).
2.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues
delayed the initial download and operation of the application,
consuming time before the session could be successfully logged.
2.3. Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver intended to
purchase additional time to cover the departure process.
However, the Claimant’s chosen payment infrastructure, the
RingGo application, technically blocked and restricted any
retrospective payments or session extensions once the primary
slot had lapsed.
2.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the
technical limitations of the Claimant’s own payment system. A
motorist cannot be penalised for a breach of contract when the
Claimant's own mechanisms make compliance impossible.
3. De Minimis Variance and Failure to Apply Mandatory Grace
Periods
3.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association
(BPA) and is strictly bound by the BPA Code of Practice (Version
9), active at the time of the incident.
3.2. Section 13.3 of the BPA Code mandates a "Grace Period" of a
minimum of 10 minutes at the end of a parking session to allow
motorists to safely vacate the site.
3.3. The paid session expired at 14:45, and the vehicle passed
the exit ANPR camera at 15:02, creating a net variance of 17
minutes.
3.4. Deducting the mandatory 10-minute grace period, the
technical overstay sits at a mere 7 minutes. The Defendant
contends that a 7-minute variance whilst managing young children
and a dog is de minimis (trifling) and does not warrant the
triggering of a £100 punitive charge, particularly where 82% of
the total stay was fully paid for.
4. Chronology of Reasonable Conduct and Mitigation
4.1. Formal representations were maintained consistently to
resolve this matter reasonably:
• Initial Appeal: Submitted on 15/09/2024, explicitly detailing
the network issues and the RingGo application’s technical
restrictions. This was rejected via an automated template on
01/10/2024.
• POPLA Appeal: Lodged subsequently, where a formal offer was
extended to pay the fractional tariff difference of £1.65 to
ensure the landowner was fully compensated for the time on site.
This was refused on 17/12/2024.
4.2. This continuous dialogue demonstrates a clear intent by the
vehicle's occupants to pay the true value of the stay. The
Claimant's rigid refusal to accept the tariff shortfall,
choosing instead to pursue an exorbitant windfall through
litigation, is unreasonable.
5. Vague Particulars, Hidden Fees, and Unlawful Interest (Abuse
of Process)
5.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") fail to comply with Civil
Procedure Rule 16.4 and are an abuse of process. The Claimant
has bundled the primary £100 parking charge with arbitrary
"damages" to state a sum of £170.00.
5.2. The Defendant avers that the addition of an extra £70.00
constitutes an unlawful attempt at double recovery. The primary
£100 parking charge is already legally calculated by operators
to include the costs of operational management and debt
recovery. Artificial inflation of this nature violates the BPA
Code of Practice and the principles of proportionality upheld in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
5.3. Furthermore, the Claimant demands a total "Amount claimed"
of £194.92, leaving an unspecified, hidden deficit of £24.92
completely unaccounted for in the narrative of the PoC.
5.4. While the Claimant requests interest at 8% per annum under
s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, they have failed to provide
the mandatory calculations required by CPR 16.4(2). The PoC fail
to state the date from which interest runs, the total interest
accrued, or the daily rate. Any procedural delays in bringing
this matter to court rest entirely with the Claimant, and
interest cannot be claimed as an unquantified penalty to mask
arbitrary fee padding. Numerous County Courts routinely strike
out parking claims in their entirety on the basis of such
non-compliant and inflated pleadings.
6. Landowner Authority and Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
Compliance
6.1. 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.
6.2. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has
complied fully and flawlessly with all mandatory statutory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the
Defendant as the vehicle keeper.
7. Conclusion & Order Sought
7.1. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss or strike out
the claim due to the technical failings of the payment method
provided, the de minimis nature of the remaining variance, the
Claimant's failure to establish keeper liability, and the
fundamentally non-compliant, inflated nature of the Particulars
of Claim.
#Post#: 123162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 28, 2026, 1:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The original PCN is out of time from PoFA keeper liability.
Although you may wish to save that point in case it goes to a
hearing (which it won't).
#Post#: 123200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking PCN - Failure to pay for sufficient time
DIR By: darkpolar
Date: June 28, 2026, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks! didn't know they had only 14 days. But as mentioned
before in my initial appeal to them and also POPLA appeal, I
kind of identified myself as the driver, although I don't know
if they will make the link... will keep that if it goes to
hearing as you suggest.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page