Smart Parking Defence

boxcage76 · 2026-03-11T00:04:26+00:00

Hello, I am hoping for a little bit of advice in regards to my Smart Parking claim that has now reached the small claims stage with DCB Legal. I have filed an AoS and am now drafting my defence. I have read through the various posts on here including the newbies sticky post, but as things have progressed to this stage wanted the reassurance that what I was doing was okay. Rather than a plain cut and paste of the template, I have used the themes to compose a unique rather than boilerplate defence – please let me know if this is going to be doomed to failure.

The scenario as far as I can assume is in relation to taking too long to pay for a parking ticket in a car park operated by Smart, and this was due to the fact that there were no spaces available on arrival (midday Saturday so everywhere was chocka) so “the driver” had to wait for one to become available then had trouble paying as the app for payment needed updating and password remembering etc. This resulted in a total delay of 15mins (from the ANPR timestamp and the app payment time) – it really did not seem this long on the day. An hour’s parking session was paid for via RingGo app and the ANPR exit photo shows the vehicle exiting 5mins before the paid session expired.

I initially tried the Smart Parking online appeal and did not get any response, only debt collector letters. I tried Landowner appeal and was again ignored.

I have structured the defence centred around the following:

1.No driver liability admitted.

2.Their NKT is non-POFA compliant in terms of wording.

3.Their NTK issue date in relation to the date of the incident means the date received was outside the required 14 day window for notification.

Below is my attempt. Do I need to add more of the legal case detail from the template?

boxcage76 · 2026-03-11T00:10:05+00:00

Sorry, hit post too soon……

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver. The Defendant makes no admission as to the identity of the driver, and the Claimant has provided no evidence capable of establishing this.
No keeper liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) not complied with:

The Claimant cannot rely on Schedule 4 of POFA to pursue the Defendant as keeper. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is fundamentally defective and fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9 of the Act in the following ways:

Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NTK fails to provide the mandatory warning informing the keeper that the Claimant will have the right to recover from the keeper any amount that remains unpaid after 28 days if the driver's details are not provided. The wording used in the NTK (e.g., “the Parking Charge is now payable to Smart Parking Ltd”) does not satisfy the strict statutory requirements of the Act.
Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NTK fails to specify the actual "period of parking". The Claimant has relied solely on ANPR entry/exit timestamps (11:56:47 and 13:07:12), which do not constitute a period of parking, as they include time spent circulating, waiting for a space to become available, and paying for the parking session.
Paragraph 9(4): The alleged contravention occurred on 18/11/2023. The NTK letter was dated 30/11/2023. Under the Interpretation Act, service is deemed to occur two working days later (04/12/2023). This is 16 days after the day after the alleged contravention, failing the mandatory 14-day delivery window.

3.The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to meet CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16:

The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4 or paragraphs 7.3–7.5 of Practice Direction 16. Although the Claimant states “Insufficient Paid Time”, this is merely a label, not a properly particularised allegation.

The Claimant fails to:

specify the actual contractual terms relied upon
state how the contract was formed
identify the tariff, time paid for, or time allegedly overstayed
explain how the alleged breach was calculated
identify the signage or its wording
state whether the claim is for breach of contract, contractual sum, or damages
explain the legal basis for the £70 add‑on
explain how POFA is engaged

The Defendant is therefore unable to understand the case to be met. The claim is inadequately pleaded and does not disclose a cause of action with the required level of particularity.

4.No contract formed at the ANPR timestamp (Consideration Period):

ANPR cameras record entry and exit, not parking. A contract can only be formed when the driver has parked, read the terms, and decided to stay. The Claimant’s reliance on ANPR timestamps to measure “parking time” is fundamentally flawed. This principle was recognised in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (Manchester County Court, 2017), where the court held that driving around, queueing, or searching for a space does not constitute parking.

The vehicle entered the site at 11:56:47.
A valid parking session was paid for and commenced at 12:12:00.
The 15-minute gap between entry and payment constitutes a reasonable "Consideration Period" under the BPA Code of Practice (Section 13). This time was necessary for the driver to search for an available space in a busy car park and to update a mobile application to facilitate payment.
The vehicle exited at 13:07:12, within the paid period which expired at 13:12:00. No breach occurred.

The Claimant’s ANPR timing includes non‑parking time, contrary to the BPA Code. This renders the alleged breach invalid.

5. Unfair terms – Consumer Rights Act 2015:

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the court must consider the fairness and transparency of terms. The requirement to pay from the exact moment of ANPR entry is an unfair term, as it fails to account for the time spent finding a bay, reading the signage and paying for the parking session.

6. The £70 “contractual costs” add-on is unlawful (Abuse of Process):

The Claimant seeks £170, comprising a £100 parking charge and a £70 sum which the Claimant has admitted in correspondence represents “contractual costs” allegedly incurred by instructing debt collection agencies. Such costs are not recoverable.

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that a £100 charge was justified as a deterrent only because it included all operational costs. The Court did not sanction additional invented sums.

The High Court in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) held that inflating a parking charge by adding “costs” for a letter‑chain was disproportionate and penal. That finding was later upheld by the Court of Appeal. The £70 add‑on in this claim is of the same character and is unrecoverable.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis for the £70, how it was incurred, and how it complies with POFA and the BPA Code.

7. No landowner authority and Pre-Action Protocol non-compliance:

The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner. The Defendant requested this evidence under the Pre-Action Protocol, which the Claimant's representative, DCB Legal, explicitly refused, stating the requests were “disproportionate”. This is a breach of the Protocol and the court is invited to consider this conduct when assessing costs.

7. The claim is without merit:

For the reasons above:

the Claimant cannot establish driver liability
the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability
the £70 add‑on is unlawful
the Particulars of Claim are defective
the Claimant has failed to comply with POFA, the BPA Code, the Consumer Rights Act, and the Protocol
a valid payment was made for the period of parking

9. The Defendant reserves the right to rely on any documents disclosed by the Claimant and to amend this Defence in light of any such disclosure or further evidence.

10. The Defendant respectfully invites the court to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth - The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad · 2026-03-11T03:28:40+00:00

That's a 5 year out of date Statement of Truth and i think you got AI to write that defence? It has other errors in it, e.g. the Beavis case wasn't about £100 PCN.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Why not use the Smart Parking Defence Group thread? There's a bespoke one already written especially for Smart claims where the NTK was non-PoFA.

Le_Kirk · 2026-03-11T10:17:08+00:00

What is the date of issue of the claim form?

boxcage76 · 2026-03-11T12:57:30+00:00

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81918065#Comment_81918065

Thanks for the reply - Yes I had used AI to help craft my responce, but with lots of shaping the output as it evolved. Annoying that it has pulled in incorrect facts…..

I have searched on here for "Smart Parking Defence Group" but I could not seem to see anything that stood out as the thread I should be looking at. Would you be so kind as to provide me a link to it so I can take a look?

Thanks.