Britannia / DCB Legal – Claim Issued – Cambridge Boathouse – Help with Defence

Torashin

Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Solicitors: DCB Legal Ltd
Site: Cambridge – The Boathouse, CB4 3AX
PCN date: 23 Jul 2024 (contravention 16 Jul 2024)
Claim issue date: 30 May 2025
Total claim: £266.56 (PCN £100 + invented £70 + fees)

Hi all,

Long-time reader, first post. Timeline below – grateful for a sense‑check on my Defence plan and any tips.

Background (succinct version)
• 16 Jul 24 – Parked early evening to attend a time‑critical event at a nearby venue and could not risk being late.
  • With only minutes to spare, I attempted to pay while walking using the “PayByPhone” app; it hung (spinning wheel) every time it tried to process Apple Pay. Ticket machines were still in place but disabled, leaving no on‑site alternative.
  • On a prior visit I had not been required to pay, so I reasonably assumed parking was free after 6 pm.
  • Car‑park still displays a large “PAY AT MACHINE” board, numerous Britannia “Pay on arrival” signs with pricing that doesn’t match the app, and PayByPhone signs on the sides of the furthest machine.
• 23 Jul 24 – NTK received (£100).
• POPLA appeal rejected (they ignored app failure/signage contradictions).
• Chain of debt‑collector letters (DCBL).
• 27 Mar 25 – LBC from DCB Legal (£170).
• 06 Apr 25 – Robust response emailed (debt denied, 30‑day hold, SAR submitted).
• 08 Apr 25 – SAR bundle received: ANPR photos + letters + stock signage images and a generic 2018 ‘authority letter’ to Greene King (no site‑specific landowner contract).

• 24 Apr 25 – DCB Legal boiler‑plate reply.
• 08 May 25 – I revisited the site: the machine nearest the “PAY AT MACHINE” board is now wrapped in black bin‑bags; not so in the SAR photos.
• 30 May 25 – Claim issued (CCBC).
• 10 Jun 25 – Acknowledged Service (“defend all”) and CPR 31.14 request emailed to DCB Legal (no reply yet).

Deadlines
• Defence filing deadline: 02 Jul 25

Planned Defence points (to slot into template)

1. Inadequate & contradictory signage – legacy “pay-and-display” boards still in place, mismatched prices, hidden app notice → incapable of forming a clear contract (CRA 2015 transparency).

2. Frustration of contract – app failure; no functional payment alternative on site.

3. Grace period – total stay < 10 mins while payment attempts made (BPA CoP).

4. POFA flaws – NTK wording fails Sch 4 §9(2)(f); keeper liability not established, driver not admitted.

5. Abuse of process – £70 add-on (Beavis, Excel v Wilkinson, DLUHC draft Code).

6. No compliant landowner authority – SAR only contains a generic 2018 'authority letter' (not a site‑specific contract) contrary to BPA CoP §7.

7. Sparse PoC – fails CPR 16 / PD 16 §7.3.

Photos and SAR excerpts available if helpful.

Anything obvious I’ve missed?  Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

• 08 Apr 25 – SAR bundle received.

Please can you show us the sign?

I think you should add the same as I just advised here except of course remove the two mentions of 'Hospital':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81495023#Comment_81495023

With thanks to solicitor poster @troublemaker22 for that wording.

Torashin

Thanks for the feedback, Coupon-mad!

Below are pics of the main signage taken from the SAR bundle (these match how it looked on 16 Jul 24):




This is how it looks now (if it matters):

Here’s my latest defence plan, which I will drop into section 3 of the template (with your point rolled into paragraph 5):

1. Frustration of contract – While walking from the car to a time‑critical engagement, the Defendant attempted payment repeatedly via PayByPhone. Each attempt froze on the Apple Pay “processing” wheel even though the linked debit card was in funds and worked for other same‑day transactions. By the time the Defendant reached the venue, the event was starting and the app was still looping. With disabled machines on site and no time to hike back and locate alternative parking, payment was impossible. Expecting a motorist to abandon a booked event to debug a malfunctioning payment app is unreasonable.

2. Reasonable belief parking was free in the evening – On the Defendant’s last visit to the site no fee had been required, and many nearby city car parks are free during evening hours. While hurrying to the event and wrestling with the frozen app, the Defendant had no practical opportunity to go back and scrutinise every sign (which in fact states payment applies at all times). Relying on that recent experience and local custom, the Defendant reasonably assumed that evening parking was still free and that the app’s refusal to accept payment confirmed a continuing suspension of charges.

3. Inadequate & contradictory signage – A large “PAY AT MACHINE” board (legacy instruction) still greets drivers at the entrance, while separate Britannia tariff boards sit elsewhere, and just two small PayByPhone notices are tucked onto the furthest disabled machine. These competing signs quote different instructions and payment channels, so there is no single, clear set of terms. Indeed, the machine has since been covered by black bin‑bags (photographed 08 May 25), tacitly acknowledging that drivers were still trying to use it and thereby reinforcing the confusion caused. Such muddled messaging fails the CRA 2015 requirement for prominent, transparent consumer notices.

4. Unfair & unclear pricing – The tariff boards display £6 for 4 hrs, yet the PayByPhone app silently adds a 40p “service” fee not mentioned on any signage. This hidden fee breaches CRA 2015 §§62‑68 (lack of transparency). The operator’s eventual demand leaps to £170 – more than 28 × the advertised cost. Such an extreme mark‑up bears no relation to loss, is commercially opportunistic, and shows the charge is an exploitative penalty devised purely for profit.

5. No compliant landowner authority – SAR produced only a generic 2018 ‘authority letter’; the Claimant is put to strict proof of a site‑specific contract compliant with BPA CoP §7.

6. Tariff‑versus‑Penalty – The only alleged breach is non‑payment of a £6.40 tariff (or £6 if relying on the prominent tariff board). The Claimant’s escalation to £170 is over 26–28 × the underlying tariff and cannot be justified as a deterrent. In ParkingEye v Beavis the charge was upheld because it protected a legitimate interest in deterring over‑stays in a free car park. Here, Britannia’s legitimate interest is to collect parking revenue; imposing a windfall penalty for failure of its own payment system is not analogous and offends the penalty rule.

Cheers!

Coupon-mad

I think that's too much information and this 'word soup' reads like Chat GPT wrote it!

"With disabled machines on site and no time to hike back and locate alternative parking, payment was impossible. Expecting a motorist to abandon a booked event to debug a malfunctioning payment app is unreasonable."

If you are saying that the machines were not working and nor was the app, then say that concisely as paragraph 3.

Remove ALL the old stuff about the DLUHC and their draft Impact Assessment. That is several paragraphs to be pruned from para 9 onwards.

Then (apart from promissory estoppel) instead of the DLUHC/ Draft IA paragraphs, add the words I suggested here about Beavis ... wording courtesy of @troublemaker22

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81509109/#Comment_81509109