Letter of Claims from DCB Legal on behalf of Smart Parking - Please check my response

Worried_User135 · 10 March at 11:06AM

Hi everyone! Thank you, life got in the way and got side tracked by this!

Please can someone review this defence…

I added point 2 and will enter names and details. Is this ok? I have emails from the facility manager confirming the cancellation.

Many thanks as always!!

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The Land owner - company name (Name & title) was contacted with regards to this parking fine and has confirmed the fine was to be Cancelled. Smart Parking Head of Accounts XXX has also confirmed the ticket has been cancelled. As such this claim should not be pursued.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time.

4. Payment was made to park on the date in question (Oct 2024). Any alleged breach relates only to a minimal period and occurred despite payment having been made in good faith.

5. Machine fault and keying error. The payment machine was not fully responsive. Due to this, the first two characters of the vehicle registration were entered twice. This was not an attempt to avoid payment and resulted directly from the poor usability of the machine provided by your client.

6. Appeal ignored. An appeal was submitted to Smart Parking Limited at the time. No response was ever received. This failure to engage deprived me of the opportunity to resolve the matter early and is unreasonable conduct.

7. De minimis overstay and grace periods. Any alleged overstay was approximately five minutes. Your client is a member of the British Parking Association and is required to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, which mandates:

A minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of paid parking; and a reasonable consideration period on arrival.

Given payment was made and the overstay was trivial, no parking charge should have been issued.

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

9. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Worried_User135 · 10 March at 11:13AM

2) The Land owner Picton Property was contacted with regards to this parking fine and the Regional Facilities Manager, XXNAMEXX confirmed the ticket was to be Cancelled on 7th January 2026. Mr XXX then confirmed on 24th February 2026 that Smart Parking Head of National Accounts, XXNAMEXX has also confirmed the ticket has been cancelled. As such this claim should not be pursued.