15
« on: September 16, 2025, 10:57:11 am »
Hello everyone
This was my defence below 👇🏼
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM NO: M9KF4K6G
BETWEEN:
SMART PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)
and
(Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. Introduction
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim. The Claimant has no legal basis to pursue this charge, which was cancelled in 2021 after proof of authorised parking was provided.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim brought by Smart Parking Limited ("the Claimant") for the following reasons:
2. Permission to Park Granted
· On 01/08/2021 and 03/08/2021, the Defendant was explicitly granted permission by the reception desk at St Martins Place to park his vehicle (SA15WMC) in front of the building while moving furniture into Apartment 309.
· The reception staff assured the Defendant that no parking charge would apply as he was lawfully offloading belongings.
· The Defendant relied on this assurance and had no reason to believe any contravention occurred.
Key Defence Points
(a) Express Permission Granted (Negating "Unauthorised Parking")
· On 1 August 2021 and 3 August 2021, the Defendant parked at Park Regis Drop-Off with explicit permission from St Martins Place reception staff.
· The purpose was legitimate: offloading furniture into Apartment 309.
· Reception staff assured the Defendant this parking was authorised and no charge would apply.
(b) Charge Was Cancelled (Reasonable Reliance)
· When initial PCNs were received, the Defendant contacted St Martins Place reception.
· Staff confirmed the charges were cancelled due to the permission granted.
· The Claimant’s 4-year delay in reviving the claim is prejudicial and abusive.
(c) No Breach of Contract (Signs vs. Actual Authority)
· The Claimant’s signs cannot override express permission given by the site’s authorised staff.
· The Defendant did not see/agree to any terms imposing £100+ penalties (Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2000]).
(d) POFA 2012 Non-Compliance (Keeper Liability Invalid)
· The Claimant has provided no evidence of complying with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, including:
· Serving a valid "Notice to Keeper" within 14 days of the alleged contravention.
· Including mandatory POFA wording in correspondence.
(e) Excessive and Unenforceable Charge (Penalty Rule)
· £340 is disproportionate to any loss (parking was free/unmonitored).
· "Damages" and 8% interest are not recoverable under contract law (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]).
3. Abuse of Process
· Pursuing a claim 4 years later after cancellation assurance violates the Defendant’s right to a fair trial (CPR 1.1).
· DCB Legal has no cause of action given the prior cancellation.
4. Defendant’s Request
The Court is asked to:
· Strike out the claim in its entirety under CPR 3.4.
· Award the Defendant’s costs for defending this claim.