Total Parking Solutions & DCB Legal - Harlesden Claim Form

Gr1pr

No, everyone gets those out of court settlement offers, ignore them, don't be taken in

But do get on with your WS bundle, starting by studying the advice in the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Coupon-mad

Actually I would ask DCB for the PCN and to explain the allegation of breach 'partial payment' because this will go to a hearing.

JPCN

Thank you @Gr1pr & @Coupon-mad I will respond to that email and ask for the PCN and explanation of the allegation

JPCN

So I have received a response and they have provided the info:

This what they claim was paid on the RingGo App, i'll need to go back and check this on my wife RingGo App.

• Session 1: 21:27 to 23:00
• Session 2: 23:57 to 00:57
• Total: 153 minutes

Coupon-mad

OK, so how can a payment have just ended on the dot of 11pm?

JPCN

Finally managed to login to the RingGo App and this is what I see.

The minimum parking duration that can be selected in the RingGo app is 30 minutes, so I am unsure how a parking session of 1hr 32 minutes was recorded.

I will use this as an exhibit to highlight the "The Claimant’s own evidence reveals a significant inconsistency in its allegation"

SacredStephan

According to the photo of the sign, there is a night rate which starts at 23:00. I guess it's not possible to book a parking session which spans the day rate and night rate periods. So your first parking session ended at 23:00.

I wonder if this is designed to catch drivers out.

JPCN

Good spot @SacredStephan, it could be

JPCN

So this is my thinking in terms of the content for the WS:

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. The Claimant Has Failed to Prove Any Parking Charge is Due (I will cover RingGo payments made, RingGo anomaly i.e. min 30 durations, and Day / Night tariff transition)
4. The Claimant Has Failed to Establish Keeper Liability
5. Additional Sums Are Unrecoverable (will use @JackR1 wording and with the link to HHJ Moloney's judgment in Beavis)

Anything else I should focus on?

Is worth covering anything around DCB Legal and there discontinuations?

If anyone has a WS example they can point to me in the forum that would be welcome as well.

Coupon-mad

"Is it worth covering anything around DCB Legal and there discontinuations?"

No, because TPS cases do go to hearings so yours won't be discontinued.

You should highlight that the sign says £4.50 should have bought a parking session of two hours because the vehicle arrived and the parking began well before the night rate started.

There is nothing in the extremely cluttered contract (the sign) to tell a driver that the £4.50 offer doesn't in fact entitle them to two hours, if the parking session overlaps the 11pm night rate.

At best, the terms surrounding the overlap of two rates are ambiguous. Under UK law, if a contract term or consumer notice has multiple meanings, it must be interpreted in a way that is most beneficial to the consumer. This legal principle is known as the rule of contra proferentem. The principle is firmly embedded in UK consumer protection laws to protect consumers. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA): Under s69 of the CRA, if a written term in a consumer contract is ambiguous, the interpretation that most favours the consumer will always prevail. And under s71, courts have a duty to determine the tests of fairness and prominence of terms and notices, including applying the CRA regarding ambiguous terms, whether a party raises the issue or not.

This Summer, a similar parking sign relied upon by another BPA AOS member, with an 8pm 'night tariff' changeover rate at West Quay, Southampton was investigated by Trading Standards and found to be operating contrary to good faith and open dealing, making the term unfair, and thus unrecoverable and illegal under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the DMCC Act 2025:

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/26156618.west-quay-retail-park-britannia-parking-tariffs-change/

Additionally, on 16th July 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority ('CMA') published an open letter to all private parking operators, signalling further intended investigations and hefty fines for any instances by parking companies relying upon systems that catch people out, including all unfair terms and circumstances of operating with a lack of good faith.

Parking operators have been warned by the Regulator to ensure their practices are consistent with consumer law. The CMA outlined its expectations and identified "particular concerns about potentially unfair practices of some operators", citing "record numbers" of motorist complaints about unclear signage and more:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/parking-charges-cma-takes-action-to-drive-improvements-for-motorists