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.
