Smart Parking/DCBL claim Form insufficient paid time

Coupon-mad

Ringo should be RingGo.

Every paragraph needs a number.

Remove this (below) as it looks like you are saying you went off site to get change? No! ...also, none of these timings are pleaded in the claim so don't fill in their holes for them:

"There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance
In order for a ticket to be purchased travelling off site to the nearest store to get change would be required in this instance
Ticket purchased 13.11 left the car park 15:11
Appeal stated that no parking fee was paid for the duration of 133 minutes on site, however proof was sent of parking ticket.
On this basis I believe this claim contradicts the appeal made as the appeal was rejected because no valid ticket was purchased to imply insufficient paid time in this claim is not justified."

Le_Kirk

....... also in your post here Today at 12:44AM you state the PDT does not accept coins or notes!

Gr1pr

Lets see the latest adapted paragraphs,  typically 2 , 3 & new 4

Marcus12b

Coupon-mad said:

Ringo should be RingGo.

Every paragraph needs a number.

Remove this (below) as it looks like you are saying you went off site to get change? No! ...also, none of these timings are pleaded in the claim so don't fill in their holes for them:

"There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance
In order for a ticket to be purchased travelling off site to the nearest store to get change would be required in this instance
Ticket purchased 13.11 left the car park 15:11
Appeal stated that no parking fee was paid for the duration of 133 minutes on site, however proof was sent of parking ticket.
On this basis I believe this claim contradicts the appeal made as the appeal was rejected because no valid ticket was purchased to imply insufficient paid time in this claim is not justified."

When I did my appeal to them I did explain that due to the call being disconnected when I rang and app was taking a long time to get it working. I went to get change at Maryland Chicken (it's about 50 meters away if that) 

Marcus12b

Le_Kirk said:

....... also in your post here Today at 12:44AM you state the PDT does not accept coins or notes!

I can't see anywhere I put that but that it did not accept notes. That machine does only accept coins but I had not got the amount enough to park at the time. That's why I tried the phone then the app. Eventually getting change to park there.

Marcus12b

3. When entering the car park they are no clear signs of any contract to adhere to those that are placed can be impeded when cars are parked as it was on this occasion as stated in appeal as it was very busy

One of such signs is printed very small partially impeded by branches and the writing too small to read it clearly.

4. There was difficulty in paying for a ticket, the ticket machine only accepts coins, it does accept notes, debit card payments, chip and pin or contactless as a method of payment. The Number on display was used to purchase ticket but issue with call being disconnected automatically by the service provider RingGo, the app also took a long time couldn't get it to work to register.

There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance.

5. A challenge was made, but denied due to no ticket being purchased for the duration of stay, even though it was provided and clearly shows in the SAR request made by defendant a ticket was purchased.



I was thinking of adding that I was travelling with my son who would of been 2 years old, he would of been in a push chair, so generally it would of taken me longer to leave or enter park if you see what I mean.

Coupon-mad

This doesn't make sense:

"the ticket machine only accepts coins, it does accept notes, debit card payments, chip and pin or contactless as a method of payment. "

Le_Kirk

Marcus12b said:

4. There was difficulty in paying for a ticket, the ticket machine only accepts coins, it does not accept notes, debit card payments, chip and pin or contactless as a method of payment. The Number on display was used to purchase ticket but issue with call being disconnected automatically by the service provider RingGo, the app also took a long time couldn't get it to work to register.

There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance.

Maybe you missed out a "not" above.

Marcus12b

Le_Kirk said:

Marcus12b said:

4. There was difficulty in paying for a ticket, the ticket machine only accepts coins, it does not accept notes, debit card payments, chip and pin or contactless as a method of payment. The Number on display was used to purchase ticket but issue with call being disconnected automatically by the service provider RingGo, the app also took a long time couldn't get it to work to register.

There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance.

Maybe you missed out a "not" above.

😂 Yeah exactly that.
I went to the car park took some pictures and it has changed. The ticket machine now does accept debit card payments (chip and pin and contactless)
I did though find from Google pictures of the old machine not sure though when they changed it.

I did explain in my challenge back in 2021 that we was in a pandemic with COVID the machine is out dated and it didn't have the function for debit card payments. This would of made it much easier to pay without the inconvenience of going to the shop getting change

Marcus12b

This is my final defence before I submit on mcol. Is there anything worth adding.

Just to note 

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. When entering the car park they are no clear signs of any contract with the terms and conditions to adhere to those that are placed can be impeded when cars are parked as it was on this occasion as stated in appeal as it was busy day. One of such signs is printed very small partially impeded by branches and the writing too small to read it clearly. I had my son with me who would of been 2 at the time.

4. There was difficulty in paying for a ticket, the ticket machine only accepts coins, it does not accept bank notes, debit card payments whether it's chip and pin or contactless. The contact number on display was used to purchase a ticket but issue with call being disconnected automatically by the service provider RingGo, there was no alternative contact number to try, the app also took a long time to download but then required also to register and couldn't get it to work. There was no one on site that worked on behalf of operator to provide assistance.

5. A challenge was made explaining the difficulty, but was denied due to no ticket being purchased for the duration of stay, even though it was provided and clearly shows in the SAR request made by defendant a ticket was purchased and left prior to end time allocated.

6. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

7. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

8. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

9. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

10. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

11. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

12. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Thanks