Defendant vs DCB Legal (for Parkmaven)

MrJenkinsEsq

The court's order requires a defence that engages with the specific claim. An account of events is not, on its own, a defence. A defence connects the facts to legal principles that produce a result the court can act on.

At the time of the Defendant's stay ([dates]), the hotel's own website advertised on-site guest parking at £5 per 24 hours. A copy of the archived webpage, captured by the Internet Archive on [date of capture], is attached at Exhibit [ref]. The same page today advertises £6, confirming that the archived £5 rate reflects the position at the material time and has since been amended. See Exhibit [ref] captured on [date of capture].

The Defendant purchased parking at a payment machine located at the hotel reception, as part of check-in. The machine framed the transaction by asking how long the Defendant was staying, and the Defendant entered 2 days, meaning the two-night stay. The receptionist asked what time the Defendant would be departing on the Thursday and was told approximately 06:00. Payment of £10 was taken without any indication that this sum would not cover the stated departure. A consumer paying for parking at a hotel reception, having just stated their departure time, reasonably expects to be told at that moment if the payment being taken is insufficient. No such warning was given. The Defendant departed at approximately [06:30] on the Thursday. Forty-eight hours from arrival expired at 06:45 on the Thursday.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the ownership and operation of the payment machine at the hotel reception. If the machine was the hotel's, the Defendant's transaction was with the landowner and the Defendant parked with the landowner's express permission. If the machine was the Claimant's, the Claimant's point of sale was the hotel reception during check-in, and the Claimant is fixed with the representations made in that environment, including the hotel's advertised rate. The Claimant must establish which analysis applies and prove the contractual basis on which it says the transaction proceeded. On either analysis the claim fails, as set out below.

The Defendant's primary case is that the parking was purchased from the hotel, the landowner, in that express transaction. The Defendant parked with the landowner's express permission, having paid the landowner's advertised price. The Claimant's claim is premised on a contract said to arise from signage. No such contract can arise where the motorist parks under an express arrangement with the landowner, and the Claimant, whose authority derives from the landowner, cannot levy a parking charge against a motorist parking within the scope of the landowner's own permission.

Further, on an objective analysis of offer and acceptance, the counterparty to the parking contract was the hotel. The hotel's own advertising presented parking as a hotel amenity at a hotel price, see Exhibit [ref]. Payment was taken at the hotel's reception, during the hotel's check-in process, [with the hotel's staff participating]. If the Claimant contends that it, and not the hotel, was the contracting party, the Claimant is put to strict proof of that contention, including production of its contract with the hotel. If that contract confers an agency to enforce, and not authority to offer parking as principal, then the Claimant was not party to any contract with the Defendant and has no standing to sue upon it. An agent cannot sue in its own name on its principal's contract. Whether an operator contracts with motorists as principal or merely enforces as agent turns on the terms of its arrangement with the landowner, and those terms must be proved, not asserted. If the Claimant instead contends that the hotel conducted the reception transaction as the Claimant's agent, then the Claimant is bound by the representations made in that transaction and in the hotel's advertising, as set out below. There is no analysis on which the Claimant both has standing and escapes those representations.

Alternatively, if the machine and transaction were the Claimant's, then the transaction was conducted in the hotel's reception as part of the hotel's check-in process, and the Claimant is bound by the representations made in that environment and in the hotel's contemporaneous public advertising. The Defendant relied on those representations in paying £10 and in remaining parked until the Thursday morning. The Claimant is estopped from asserting a materially shorter parking period than the one represented.

Further, and on either analysis, section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that anything said or written to the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader, about the trader or the service, is treated as a term of the contract if the consumer takes it into account when deciding to enter into the contract. The advertised rate of £5 per 24 hours was written to consumers about the parking service, and the Defendant took it into account in paying £10. The 24-hour rate is accordingly a term of the contract. The Defendant departed within 48 hours of arrival and was not in breach of that term.

The Claimant is further put to strict proof that terms imposing the day structure it now asserts existed at the point of payment at the material time, and that such terms were sufficiently prominent to displace the advertised rate of £5 per 24 hours on which the Defendant had relied. A term contradicting an advertised rate is an onerous term requiring prominence proportionate to its effect. Photographs of current signage or generic evidence will not suffice. The Claimant must evidence the specific display at the point of payment as it existed on the date of the transaction.

In the further alternative, the sale of "2 days" of parking, purchased at a machine which framed the transaction by reference to the length of the Defendant's stay, against public advertising of £5 per 24 hours, is at best ambiguous between 48 hours and two calendar days ending at midnight. By section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 the meaning most favourable to the consumer prevails. The common law reaches the same result twice over: ambiguity is construed against the drafter, and where rival constructions exist the court prefers the one consistent with business common sense (Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50). A hotel guest's parking naturally runs with the stay, to check-out on the day of departure. On the Claimant's construction, the Defendant's car became unauthorised at midnight on the Wednesday while the Defendant slept as a paying guest upstairs, and a motorist arriving at 23:00 who paid for one day would receive only one hour of parking. A reasonable consumer cannot be taken to have agreed to that, and business common sense does not support it.

A term operating in the manner the Claimant asserts is not transparent within the meaning of section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is not prominent. It therefore does not benefit from the exclusion in section 64, and falls to be assessed for fairness under section 62. A term under which the advertised per-24-hour rate delivers materially less than 24 hours per unit paid causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations, contrary to the requirement of good faith, to the detriment of the consumer. It is unfair and not binding on the Defendant. The court is in any event obliged by section 71 of the 2015 Act to consider the fairness of the term.

In the final alternative, if there was a breach, the £100 charge is an unenforceable penalty on these facts. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 the charge was upheld because it served a legitimate interest: securing the turnover of free, time-limited spaces for the benefit of retail customers. A hotel guest car park serves the opposite function. The hotel and its parking contractor must reasonably assume that a guest who arrives by car will retain the car on site for the duration of the stay. It would be unreasonable to expect the car to vacate before the guest does, and no interest of any kind is served by requiring a sleeping guest's car to leave at midnight while the guest remains a paying customer upstairs. The Defendant paid the advertised rate in full for the duration of the stay. No legitimate interest is served by a £100 charge whose only foundation is the Claimant's own method of counting days. The charge is in these circumstances extravagant and unconscionable, and Beavis is fully distinguished.

In the yet further alternative, and strictly without prejudice to the denials above, if the Defendant's paid period expired at midnight on the Wednesday, which is denied, then the parking outstanding was a single further day, priced by the Claimant's own tariff at £5. The ordinary measure of any sum due for parking beyond a paid period at a tariff car park is the tariff price for that period: that is the position the parties would have occupied had the further day been paid for. Had the machine or the receptionist indicated that the Defendant's stated departure time required payment for a third day, the Defendant would have paid the further £5 at the time. Any recoverable quantum is accordingly limited to £5. The demand for £100 in place of an unpaid £5 tariff reinforces the preceding paragraph: the charge is not a genuine attempt to recover the price of parking but a penalty many times the Claimant's own valuation of the parking in question.

If and in so far as the Defendant's departure marginally exceeded 48 hours from arrival, the code of practice applicable to the Claimant mandates a minimum grace period of 10 minutes after the end of the parking period [confirm current paragraph number in the BPA Code of Practice or the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice]. Any marginal excess falls within that mandatory grace period.

On each of these analyses there was no actionable overstay and no sum is due from the Defendant. The claim should be dismissed.

I'm just a random person on the internet, not legally qualified. I've inferred your circumstances from what you've posted and may have details wrong. Check every fact and verify every legal argument before relying on any of it. Shared in good faith, not advice. Check/fill in the [ ].

MrJenkinsEsq

At any point during the booking, and that you can evidence, was a positive action made to express an interest in parking? Eg, ticking a box for, "will you require parking during your stay?".

Did you make the booking or your employer and if it was your employer could you evidence that?

Can you evidence a successful claim for the parking cost?

Coupon-mad

Damn good first posts, kudos!

Very well written @MrJenkinsEsq

That in itself can be used as the defence, plus add in the usual paras about HHJ Moloney's Beavis judgment (link his first instance transcript, why not, this daft judge might learn something) and put in the usual para challenging landowner authority.

The only issue is that 'exhibits' per se aren't attached to defences (they come later) but because the Amended Defence is being emailed to Plymouth court (& cc in the solicitors) there's nothing to stop the D adding links or footnote URLs.

chad888

Thankyou everyone for guidance.

I have done some further digging through expense sheets. I have parking receipts from subsequent stays, but not this one — we used to send off paper copies of reciepts, but we switched to an app in 2025.

A night stay finished at the next immediate 11am following payment. If I turn up at 3pm, 11pm or 1am, I pay for 1 night stay and it ends at 11am which is check-out time.

Ergo, I arrived at 06:30 Tuesday, parked, paid, and then went into work next door. This meant I paid for 2 nights, but the first night was only from 06:30-11:00. My 2 nights parking ended at 11:00 Wednesday.

My argument it seems, is the definition of what one nights parking means. That is not clear at any point of purchasing; its an expense claim that work pay me back, why would I try to steal an extra night!

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd — BAILII judgment⁠ holds that terms of a contract have to be sufficiently brought to the motorists attention before the contract is concluded. They had to make clear their definition of night was not a literal night and parking actually expired 4.5 hours later that morning.

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 judgement likewise says that contractual terms must be communicated before or at the making of the contract (paying for parking) and not any second after forming the contract (paying for parking).

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 judgement held that the more unusual a contractual term, the more must be done to bring it to the other parties attention. One nights parking should mean one night, and the fact it uses a different definition of night should be made very clear.

Consumer Rights Act 2015, ss.68 and 69 says if a consumer contractual term could have competing interpretations, the most favourable to the consumer prevails. Two night stay at the hotel, with two nights parking at the hotel, parking the morning of the first night stay – using the dictionary definition of a night – suggests the interpretation is in my favour

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Holds that Beavis entered a contract with numerous clear notices stating 2 hours maximum stay. In my situation the duration of the parking product is purchased was not clear, "one night" purchase isnt an overnight stay, its duration changes according to when it is purchased.

chad888

Found the email receipt...

[Image removed by Forum Team]

Gr1pr

Save your Exhibits ( Evidence ) for your Witness Statement plus Exhibits bundle stage that will arrive in your future court order, because at the moment you are amending and adding to your original defence, with the additional statements in red ink

Remember that your final new defence must have a header and a footer and be dated and signed under the current Statement of Truth, and sent to your local civil court and also to the lawyers as well, by email

chad888

Amended defence:

3a. The Defendant was a guest at the Holiday Inn Express, Bristol (BS34 8TJ)
between 17 December 2024 and 19 December 2024. At the time of the Defendant’s
stay, the hotel’s website advertised on-site guest parking at “5 GBP / day” as one of
the hotel amenities. The defendant parked in the car park at approximately 0630 on
Tuesday 19th December, and entered the hotel reception to pay for parking. The machine asked how many nights he would be staying and the Defendant selected ‘2’
on-screen, referring to the nights of 17th and 18th December. The defendant paid a
sum of £10 which is reasonably expected to be for the two-night stay including the
evening of the day that parking was purchased. A receipt was emailed at 06:46
which shows payment taken at 06:45, the receipt gives a departure time of 12:30 on
18 December 2024.

3b.
(i) In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd – BAILII judgement holds that terms
of a contract must be sufficiently brought to the motorists’ attention before the
contract is concluded, Lord Denning held that where payment is made to an
automatic system, the contract is concluded when the customer commits to
the transaction.

(ii) Likewise, the judgement in Olley vs Malborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
holds that contractual terms must be communicated before or at the making of
a contract.

(iii) Further, the judgement in Intertoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual
Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 held that the more unusual a contractual
term, the more must be done to bring it to the other parties’ attention.

(iv) The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (S68 and 69) says that if a consumer
contractual term could have competing interpretations, the most favourable
interpretation to the consumer prevails.

3c. As the defendant parked in the hotel car park on 17th December and paid for
parking for a two-night stay, it is reasonably expected the defendant paid for the
overnight stays on the dates 17th and 18th December. The contract was concluded
upon payment at 06:45 and therefore the terms of the contract, namely the definition
of ‘two nights’ not meaning ‘overnight,’ should have been disclosed prior to receiving
the receipt at 06:46. Further, a ‘night’ not meaning ‘overnight’ is an unusual
contractual term, especially at a hotel, and the Claimant must have done as much as
they can to bring it to the Defendants attention. As the Claimant did not do enough to
bring it to the Defendants attention, the most favourable interpretation to the
Defendant is applied. On this analysis, there is no actionable overstay and no sum is
due from the Defendant. The claim should be dismissed.

Coupon-mad

But what about everything @MrJenkinsEsq wrote for you?

That was a defence right there! And really well composed. Amalgamate the two and add what I said already:

"That in itself can be used as the defence, plus add in the usual paras about HHJ Moloney's Beavis judgment (link his first instance transcript, why not, this daft judge might learn something) and put in the usual para challenging landowner authority.

The only issue is that 'exhibits' per se aren't attached to defences (they come later) but because the Amended Defence is being emailed to Plymouth court (& cc in the solicitors) there's nothing to stop the D adding links or footnote URLs."

To do an Amended Defence, start with your original defence on a word doc. Strike everything through in red EXCEPT for paras 1 and 2 (leave them in) and leave in the one about challenging landowner authority.

…then your new defence (your bit plus MrJenkinsEsq's words, are placed underneath and all IN RED.

Add the full (current) statement of truth (please not the one liner that Chat GPT wrongly provides) then your electronic signature (either in a contrasting script font, or add a cropped photo of your signature on white paper), add the date and any footnote links - such as to your case law and to HHJ Moloney's judgment - and get it emailed to Plymouth court (& cc in the solicitors).

MrJenkinsEsq

@chad888 please feel free to copy what I wrote, taking into account the disclaimer. It wasn't an explanation solely for your understanding but wording you could lift and place into your defence :)