Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks, below my defence, based on a few similar cases I found on this forum and some help from AI. Let me know if okay or any advice to strenghten it.

1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration xxxxxx on the material date.
2. Sparse Particulars and Failure to Comply with Civil Procedure Rules
2.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") on the Claim Form are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5.
2.2. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because the Claimant has failed to state the exact wording of the contractual terms relied upon, or provide any itemized breakdown showing how a single parking infraction calculates to the arbitrary combined sum of £170.00 for "PC and damages".
2.3. The claim discloses no clear cause of action. The Defendant submits that courts routinely strike out materially similar private parking claims of their own initiative under CPR 3.4 for failing to explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
3. Impossibility of Performance and Technical Barriers
3.1. The Defendant made a prompt, good-faith payment to purchase a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s designated RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session: 12:45–14:45).
3.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues delayed the initial download and operation of the application.
3.3. Upon realizing an overstay would occur due to practical delays handling young children and a dog on a beach visit, the Defendant attempted to extend the session. However, the RingGo application technically restricted any retrospective payments or session extensions once the primary slot had lapsed.
3.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the technical limitations of the Claimant’s own chosen payment infrastructure, which failed to accommodate real-world network constraints.
4. Mandatory Grace Periods and ANPR Deficiencies
4.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is strictly bound by its Code of Practice.
4.2. Section 13.1 mandates a "Consideration Period" (minimum 5 minutes) to enter, read signage, and complete a payment contract. Section 13.3 mandates a "Grace Period" (minimum 10 minutes) at the end of a session to allow motorists to safely vacate.
4.3. The vehicle passed the exit ANPR camera at 15:02, establishing a net variance of 17 minutes past the paid session.
4.4. A significant portion of this time was spent physically preparing a dog and young children for travel, and cleaning off sand, within an entirely empty car park. The Claimant's automated "gate-to-gate" ANPR timings fail to isolate actual stationary parking duration from the mandatory consideration and grace periods required to safely pack up and navigate the site.
5. Total Lack of Commercial Justification and Absence of Loss
5.1. The alleged incident occurred on a Monday. On this day, the Turner Contemporary Art Gallery—to which this car park is exclusively attached—was fully closed to the public.
5.2. Consequently, the car park was virtually vacant and dormant. The Defendant's vehicle did not obstruct operations, cause a nuisance, or prevent any other paying motorists from parking.
5.3. Under the binding precedent of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a private parking charge must possess a "legitimate interest" or "commercial justification" to be enforceable; it cannot be an unconscionable penalty.
5.4. Demanding an exorbitant penalty for a minor overstay where 82% of the stay was fully paid for, in an empty car park serving a closed facility, serves no legitimate management purpose. It is an unenforceable penalty designed solely to extract disproportionate profit. 
6. Chronology of Correspondence and Settlement Offers
6.1. The Defendant has maintained a consistent dialogue and acted reasonably throughout:Initial Appeal: Submitted on 15/09/2024, explicitly detailing the technical restrictions of the RingGo app and poor local signal. Rejected by the Claimant on 01/10/2024 via a generic template.  POPLA Appeal: Lodged subsequently, where the Defendant formally offered to pay the tariff difference of £1.65 to cover the exact fractional shortfall. This was refused on a purely rigid, factual automated basis on 17/12/2024.
6.2. The Defendant relies upon this correspondence to demonstrate a continuous good-faith willingness to settle the true value of the stay, which the Claimant unreasonably refused in pursuit of a windfall. 
7. Unlawful Double Recovery and Abuse of Process
7.1. The Claimant has appended an arbitrary "damages" fee to the original £100 parking charge to arrive at the demanded £170.00.
7.2. The Defendant avers that this inflation constitutes an abuse of process. Such automated, artificial add-ons are strictly disallowed under the BPA Code of Practice and the principles set out in ParkingEye v Beavis. It represents a clear attempt at double recovery for legal/debt services that are already factored into the primary £100 charge. Numerous County Courts routinely strike out claims in their entirety on this basis.
8. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority
8.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it holds the requisite written contemporaneous landowner authority to operate, issue charges, and pursue litigation in its own name at this specific location.
9. Conclusion & Order Sought
9.1. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 as an abuse of process and having no real prospect of success. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.1. fied by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

so I replied to DCB Legal's LoC using their web form, and they send back the below email. From previous post I understand I do not need to respond to such email. is that correct? thanks


We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.

We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 838 7038, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice

Kind Regards,

 
DCB Legal Ltd

Thanks for that, any helpful advice?

We don't need to see any debt collector letters but do show us the LoC and eventually the actual Claim Form when they arrive so that we can advise accordingly.

So the LoC just arrived, anything I need to do other than waiting for the Claim Form?

Thanks! And how long does it take usually to reach the LoC stage? a couple of months or more?

shame you didn't cone here for advice first!

I assume you revealed the identity of the driver to (not so) smart parking?

yeah, realised I should have researched more. but yes, I believe so, in my appeal to them I used "I" (paid) a lot...

Hi all,
realised after reading a few posts here that I should probably post the case way before I take any actions, but we are where we are and hopefully can still receive some advices.

In August, I parked in the Turner contemporary art gallery car park in Margate, it was Monday and the art gallery was closed and the parking was almost empty, but we went there for a walk on the beach. Upon checking the signage, the parking is still to be paid even on days Art gallery is closed, so I paid using RingGo for 2h, (although I struggle with this as I had to download the app and there were almost no signals). Played with dog and kids on the beach, and when time was up, we did came back to the carpark just a couple of minutes late. But having not seen any traffic warden (and I never experienced those kind of smart parking before), and an even emptier car park, we took our time to dry the dog and get sands off our shoes before leaving the parking. Toping up did cross my mind, but RingGo didn't seem to give me option to pay more once the session has ended. 

Anyway, a few weeks later I received the attached PCN saying I overstayed by 27 min. (arrival time 12:35 - departure time 15:02, my Ringgo payment history shows I paid for 12:45-14:45.)
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Although I recognise it is a case of overstay, I felt hard done by and disproportionate penalty as I did pay the parking for 120 min out of 147 min, getting a PCN of £100 as if I have not paid at all. So hoping for some common sense, I used their appeal system, which was rejected a couple of weeks later, with the following message

Thank you for your recent communication.
Having considered your appeal in detail we have decided to uphold the Parking Charge as we believe that it was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised within the area concerned. As your appeal was received within the initial discount period we have extended the discount period until 15/10/2024.
We note the comments made within your appeal, however we cannot rescind the PC on this basis. We wish to confirm that the contravention of insufficient paid time occurred as our system confirms that whilst 120 were purchased were purchased against Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) xxx, your vehicle remained on site for 147 minutes. The signage onsite clearly informs motorist that they are required to purchase a valid ticket for the full duration of their vehicles stay onsite. Furthermore, additional time can be purchased at any point during throughout your vehicles stay, before exiting the car park, allowing for any unexpected overstays due to circumstances such as those outlined in your appeal.

We wish to inform that the car park in question is operated by ANPR cameras system which captures images of your vehicle entering and exiting the site, which subsequently calculates your total stay duration. This information is then paired with the information entered into the payment machine/alternate payment option, to establish whether or not  the correct payment has been made against the full and correct vehicle registration for the total duration the vehicle is on site - this is calculated from the time of entrance to the time of exit.

As the vehicle was on site in excess of the parking time purchased and no valid additional payments were made to cover the entire parking duration, we wish to advised that the advertised Terms and Conditions were breached. Subsequently the PC has been issued correctly. The Terms and Conditions of the car park are clearly advertised around the site and must be adhered to by all drivers.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options, you can pay or appeal - you cannot do both.
If the Parking Charge was issued in England and Wales you also have the right of appeal to an independent appeals service (POPLA). If you wish to make an appeal to POPLA the forms are available on their website at www.popla.co.uk
...

So I did lodge an appeal at Popla, hoping for less profit oriented more balanced people would have better common sense, but after waiting for 2 months, this also get rejected a couple of weeks ago, see case letter attached.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

So at this point, any advice appreciated, I just want to understand if it is still worth fighting the case, and if so, what further actions can I take?

thanks in advance

PS: There some pictures of signages submitted by SmartParking to POPLA but it seems I can't access them anymore on Popla since case is closed (they were not helpful in any sense as it just say you have to pay for the duration). Google map also not useful for signage as it pre-dated the parking completion I suppose.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3914381,1.3818267,3a,75y,40.56h,71.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8c_G0TToEK5fd5595JD2pg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D18.184981950631283%26panoid%3D8c_G0TToEK5fd5595JD2pg%26yaw%3D40.563165920133144!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]