Claim Form Defence

ci3zi2

Hi all,

I'm currently writing out my paragraph 3 defence against Smart Parking Limited/DCB legal, and wanted some advice on whether the defence is appropriate. Claim form was issued on 7th July, AoS was filed on the 11th, and received on the 13th.

I was visiting a pub which on the entrance on the car park, had a sign which read: 'Customer 3 hour parking, see notice on site for terms and conditions.' I ordered a meal, stayed around 2 hours and left. What I didn't know at the time was that the free parking requires a validation from a qr code you get from the staff. This was written on only one sign, located at the pay station at the side of the car park, to the left of the pub entrance in an unlit area. None of the other signs dotted around the car park made any mention of the requirement to validate. Given the PoC stated the breach was for paying for insufficient time, I was thinking of a defence based on:

1. the payment of the time parked arise from being a patronage of the pub, and not the scanning of a qr code, and
2. Insufficient signage notifying the requirement to validate, creating an unfair contract term.

My draft defence is:

3.The defendant was a genuine customer of the business and thus
was allowed 3 hours of free parking, as per the signage at the
entrance. The defendant had parked for a little over 2 hours
during the alleged breach. No signage was observed or brought to
the defendant’s attention regarding any requirement to validate
the free parking, and accordingly the defendant was wholly unaware
of any such limitation. None of the signs around the entrance to
the business, as well as where the defendant had parked, made any
mention of the requirement to validate, and therefore the
defendant had no reason to consider the existence of such detailed
terms and conditions. As far as the defendant was concerned, he
had paid for the time parked by being a patron of the business.
While it is accepted that signage may have been present, it was
not sufficiently prominent or clear to have been seen or
appreciated by the defendant, and under the principle established
in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], terms that are
not adequately brought to the attention of a motorist cannot be
binding.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do the job but:

Remove this completely:

"As far as the defendant was concerned, he had paid for the time parked by being a patron of the business. While it is accepted that signage may have been present, it was not sufficiently prominent or clear to have been seen or appreciated by the defendant"

and this 'point 1' in your post makes no grammatical sense!

1. "the payment of the time parked arise from being a patronage of the pub, and not the scanning of a qr code, and"

🙂

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 07/07/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 10/08/26