Smart parking Ltd defence

coconut_ice_cream

Hi,

I have been issued a claim from smart parking Ltd for alleged owed money. It is dated 22nd October and I have logged acknowledgment of service on MCOL. I need to submit my defence very soon as understand the deadline is approaching. I’d love any thoughts/feedback before I submit.

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [deleted] at [deleted].
2. The date of contravention is 15/10/2020

and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant

1. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time.
2. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

I have used the very helpful template with paragraph 3 amended to my personal situation as below. Is this sufficient or is more detail required?

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 admits only that they were the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the date stated.

3.

The Defendant recalls visiting a café at on 15/10/2020 but does not recall the precise timings or any specific signage terms, given the passage of more than five years. The Particulars of Claim merely allege “insufficient paid time” without stating what period was paid for, what period was permitted, or how the alleged breach occurred. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has complied in full with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or provided proof that a valid contract was formed.

4.

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 Sch 2 (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.

5.

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).

6.

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] UKSC 67.

7.

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 Beavisand 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.”

8.

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.”

9.

Pursuant to Sch 4 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.

10.

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 annotates: “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)).”

Thank you in advance and also apologies if this is wrong place for feedback - newbie here!

Coupon-mad

Welcome! These ones are easy.

You need the extra para 4 seen in all Smart Parking Defences. There are almost 40 of them linked in a reply from me on this page:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-2025-now-lets-see-what-happens/p14