help need please court claim DCB Smart Parking

anonuser123

Hi all

Can I please get some help and guidance, I have read through the pinned threads and completed the AOS and said that I wanted to dispute the whole amount.

Issue date is 20/5/26

The info on the claim form is, indebted to claimant, date of contravention in 2023, was issued with a PC, pursued as diver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract) Reason insufficient paid time.

In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper.

Claimant claims £170 being the total of the PC and damages

Interest at a rate of 8% per annum etc

Costs and Court fees.

Now on to the story

I parked my vehicle in a car park, I needed to pick up some keys at a local shop. I saw a sign about using ringo to pay and I had used them before so I thought it would be no problem. On my way to pick up the keys I tried to log on to ringo but it would not let me. I tried resetting the password but had no luck getting on. I collected the keys and then thought I would stop and try and get it sorted. I tried for a while different ways of resetting and calling ringo, unfortunately you cannot speak to ringo you can only pay over the phone if your vehicle is registered with them. At the time I just got a new car and that was not the vehicle I had registered with them so I could not do it on the phone. There were no machines to pay or any other way to pay. I managed to send a message to Ringo and waited but I heard no response. The only telephone number I saw on the sign was for Ringo and I tried this but it was just the automated service mentioned previously.

At this point I did not feel I was getting anywhere and left. Over the course of the bank holiday I continued to try and get onto Ringo and speak to their customer service. I eventually managed to get on the app on Monday and paid the amount it specified on the app for 1 hours parking (I was told I was there for 47 minutes by POPLA). I have a screenshot of this and receipt. I thought that was all ok and that I was dealing with Ringo, however the Ringo customer support told me the car park was operated by Smart Parking and I would have to contact them to tell them what happened.

I wrote an email to Smart Parking telling them what had happened and providing details that I had paid.

I did not get a response back from them and instead received a PCN, I first appealed it with smart parking and this got rejected. They then told me about POPLA so I appealed with them, again it was rejected and here was there response.

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle failed to pay for sufficient time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: •They parked on site for a short amount of time. •There are no payment machines on site even though the letter says there is. •They attempted to pay using the RingGo app but could not access this due to having a previous account. •They tried calling but the vehicle has to be registered to make a payment but could not speak to anyone to get this resolved. •They parked on a bank holiday weekend. •They tried to reset their detials over the weekend and attempted to contact RingGo. •They were finally successful on 8th may. •They paid for parking as soon as they were able to do so. •They managed to speak with RingGo who told them to contact the operator. However struggled to locate any contact details. They did email but did not receive a response and instead received a PCN. •The letter received makes no reference to how to contact POPLA. •They do not feel their appeal has been looked into. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided parking receipt and a letter from and to the operator as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist may form a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs within the car park. The signs on site state parking tariffs apply. This is a cashless car park. Payment is to be made by RingGo. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a 100 parking charge. The operator has provided a transaction log which shows no payment was made agaisnt the appellants vehicle on the date in question. I will now assess the appellants grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the PCN. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 13.1 states: “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependent on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes”. This site offers a consideration period of 5 minutes, which is the requirement of the BPA and I consider is reasonable for the size of the site. I acknowledge that the appellant says that they were trying to make payment, but I do not consider 47 minutes to be a reasonable time for a motorist to remain on site if they could not make payment. The appellant could have left site within the consideration period if they could not make payment via any of the payment methods and they would not have been bound by the terms and conditions. By remaining at the site after the consideration period, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of the site and also the possible consequences of breaching any of these. When parking at a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the terms and conditions. Whilst I appreciate the evidence provided by the appellant shows they paid for parking at a later date. As no payment was recorded during the time the vehicle parked this was a breach of the terms. When the appellant entered the site they accepted the contract. The terms of the contract state a payment must be made to cover the duration of stay. When the appellant left the site the contract ended. As such, the terms would need to have been complied with during the time the contract was in place. As such, whilst I can see the effort made by the appellant to pay for parking was made, as this was not made during the time they were on site the payment did not cover any previous visits to the car park. Although I note that the appellant has commented on how the operator has handled their initial appeal; when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator directly. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to purchase the appropriate parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

After that I received numerous letters first from smart parking then from different legal companies demanding varying amounts, I ignored all of these.

I have seen the thread on information to include in the defense but I would like to know what you think and also some help with the wording around what actually happened to include in the defense. Am I wrong in thinking this is unfair, in the complaint with POPLA I did offer to pay any additional amount if the amount I paid on Ringo if this was wrong after they revealed to POPLA the PCN was for insufficient time paid. They did send POPLA a picture of another sign at the car park which I did not see that had a confusing tariff on it, but I cannot see this now and they did not tell me the amount they are alleging I should have paid.

Thank you in advance for reading through all this and for any help you can provide.

Gr1pr

Save your stories for your Witness Statement in several months time, you are currently defending the POC, not explaining neuro science ! Just forget about the background information for now

Use the mse member meltof defence template posted on12th April, unchanged

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 20/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/06/26

Coupon-mad

Not sure they can use the Meltof defence because sadly they threw away the 100% slam dunk POPLA win by saying they were driving. This would have been a cinch & easy win guaranteed at the time, had you come here @anonuser123

However, any defence will do. Use the Template Defence (top of the forum) and the claim will end up discontinued by Xmas.

anonuser123

I only found out about this place afterwards.

I naively thought that common sense would prevail and the ombudsman would sort it out, I know see that they just want any excuse to issues these fines.

Thank you for your help, do I just copy and paste the defense and don't add comments about what happened?

Coupon-mad

Obviously you don't copy & paste para 3! Come on, this is very easy indeed, as POPLA would have been. Just play the game.

I already said you can't use the Meltof defence because you binned the winning point. Use the Template Defence (top of the forum) and the claim will end up discontinued by Xmas.

Gr1pr

It looks like you will have to use the 10 paragraph defence in the defence template thread in announcements to defend the case, adding a suitable ending to paragraph 2 and a generic defence against the POC in your paragraph 3, leaving the rest unchanged

This is because it appears that they are pursuing a known driver, due to previous admissions

anonuser123

Thank you for your help. I sent across the defense and then got a letter saying the claimant has 28 days to respond.

It also said that they may try and contact me. I had a missed call from them after this.

Should I bother talking to them?

Gr1pr

No, you should spend your time more wisely, by studying and following the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum ( first post ) all these early processes are in there