Claim issued for Smart Parking/DCB Legal - Hull

san95

Hi all,

Wondering if I could get some help as have been issued a court claim and want to make sure I get it right.

Smart Parking/DCB Legal, issues a court claim against me (through the Civil National Business Centre) on the 2 September, received it yesterday in the post. They want £275.60 (the £170 charge plus the court fee, £50 legal costs and some interest). I owe them for a parking charge at "The Royal Hotel, Hull" on 7 March 2025, chasing me as the driver (I confirmed I was the driver as it went to my Mum initially as the car owner). The reason given as "paid for insufficient time".

I parked in the same car park, but used the APCOA app, which says the Hull Station car park, and it all looks like one car park but apparently it's actually split. I saw the APCOA signs, and presumed I had paid for parking. So I had paid for parking, but through APCOA and not Smart.

I did appeal to Smart Parking and sent them the receipt, but they said APCOA isn't a valid way to pay for their land and gave me a POPLA code, but (completely my bad) I missed the POPLA deadline. So it's now escalated to this. I've already sent DCB Legal an email outlining that I want more info about the signage but was on the 3rd and they had already sent the letter by the 2nd.

How should I approach this please? Should I use the standard template on this forum/what are my chances? I've also been Saz solicitors, apparently a free service? anyone had any experience with them?

I've also attached some photos to this; the TPE/APCOA sign, which I saw and the reason I paid on the app, then the Smart Parking sign too in the red box, which was much further away from my car.

I've also attached a screenshot of Google Maps that has the APCOA car park labelled too, with an arial view of the car park.

Any help appreciated, thanks!

GrannyKate

Lots online about this trap. Apparently the red bays belong to the station and the white ones belong to the hotel.

MrJenkinsEsq

My 2p

The area comprises adjoining land operated by two parking companies. There is no boundary between them, and the bays are marked identically save for line colour.

On arrival the Defendant read a sign bearing TransPennine Express and APCOA branding, which set out the tariff and directed payment via the APCOA app using a location code. The Defendant paid.

The Claimant's sign was at a distance from the bay and not legible from the point of approach or from the bay. Nothing on the APCOA sign, the road surface, or between the entrance and the bay indicated that the area was divided between operators, that different terms applied to different bays, or that payment via APCOA would not be effective.

The Defendant contracted with APCOA on the terms displayed, and performed by paying.

The Claimant's terms were not communicated to the Defendant, and the Claimant took no step reasonably sufficient to bring them to the attention of a driver arriving and paying as the Defendant did. Notice encountered after a contract is made is ineffective: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163; Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532.

A term under which a driver who has paid the displayed tariff incurs a £100 charge for paying the wrong company, in an area the driver could not distinguish, is onerous and unusual and required proportionately greater prominence: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto [1989] QB 433.

Alternatively, two inconsistent sets of terms applied to a single undifferentiated area. The Claimant's terms are not transparent within s.68 Consumer Rights Act 2015 and fall to be construed in the manner most favourable to the Defendant under s.69.

No contract was formed with the Claimant. Liability for the charge and the sums claimed is denied.

Coupon-mad

"(I confirmed I was the driver as it went to my Mum initially as the car owner)."

That was silly and what you describe was a doomed way to appeal. In Spring 2025, your mum (not you) would have won with one email! Oh well.

At least we all know all you have to do is defend and DCB Legal will discontinue in the end, and you'll pay nothing.

The above wording from @MrJenkinsEsq is perfect to form your paragraph 3 within the Template Defence. Remove the optional para 10 of the template, to make it all fit.

1505grandad

Why is Smart Parking in the title and op?

GrannyKate

Apparently if you park in the spaces belonging to the hotel the only way to pay is the reception desk in the hotel. Hotel spaces are managed by Smart.

san95

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82130339#Comment_82130339

It's the name of the parking company that sent me a PCN

san95

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82130303#Comment_82130303

Thank you for this, super helpful!! Shall I put some of this on the claim response pack?

san95

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82130316#Comment_82130316

Yep everything I see says absolutely do not confirm the driver, but was 'worried' in protecting my Mum. Thanks for the help!

san95

Thanks all for the help! related to this, I was recommended Saz Solicitors. Anyone had any experience of them, should I use them or just respond myself?

Thanks for the heads up also about other people having similar experiences with this car park, I'll check it out! (just rushed in posting this as was worried about the letter!)

OldBugger

Don't pay for solicitors, they will probably cost more than the PC. This is easy to do and you can do it by yourself.