Thanks all for the help so far.
See below my revised defence based on all previous feedback. anything I missed?
1. Preliminary
1.1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx.
2. Impossibility of Performance and Frustration of Contract
2.1. The driver acted entirely in good faith, proactively purchasing a 120-minute parking session via the Claimant’s designated RingGo application on 19/08/2024 (Paid Session: 12:45–14:45).
2.2. Upon arrival, severe local mobile network signal issues delayed the initial download and operation of the application, consuming time before the session could be successfully logged.
2.3. Upon returning to the vehicle, the driver intended to purchase additional time to cover the departure process. However, the Claimant’s chosen payment infrastructure, the RingGo application, technically blocked and restricted any retrospective payments or session extensions once the primary slot had lapsed.
2.4. Performance of the contract was actively prevented by the technical limitations of the Claimant’s own payment system. A motorist cannot be penalised for a breach of contract when the Claimant's own mechanisms make compliance impossible.
3. De Minimis Variance and Failure to Apply Mandatory Grace Periods
3.1. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and is strictly bound by the BPA Code of Practice (Version 9), active at the time of the incident.
3.2. Section 13.3 of the BPA Code mandates a "Grace Period" of a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of a parking session to allow motorists to safely vacate the site.
3.3. The paid session expired at 14:45, and the vehicle passed the exit ANPR camera at 15:02, creating a net variance of 17 minutes.
3.4. Deducting the mandatory 10-minute grace period, the technical overstay sits at a mere 7 minutes. The Defendant contends that a 7-minute variance whilst managing young children and a dog is de minimis (trifling) and does not warrant the triggering of a £100 punitive charge, particularly where 82% of the total stay was fully paid for.
4. Chronology of Reasonable Conduct and Mitigation
4.1. Formal representations were maintained consistently to resolve this matter reasonably:
• Initial Appeal: Submitted on 15/09/2024, explicitly detailing the network issues and the RingGo application’s technical restrictions. This was rejected via an automated template on 01/10/2024.
• POPLA Appeal: Lodged subsequently, where a formal offer was extended to pay the fractional tariff difference of £1.65 to ensure the landowner was fully compensated for the time on site. This was refused on 17/12/2024.
4.2. This continuous dialogue demonstrates a clear intent by the vehicle's occupants to pay the true value of the stay. The Claimant's rigid refusal to accept the tariff shortfall, choosing instead to pursue an exorbitant windfall through litigation, is unreasonable.
5. Vague Particulars, Hidden Fees, and Unlawful Interest (Abuse of Process)
5.1. The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and are an abuse of process. The Claimant has bundled the primary £100 parking charge with arbitrary "damages" to state a sum of £170.00.
5.2. The Defendant avers that the addition of an extra £70.00 constitutes an unlawful attempt at double recovery. The primary £100 parking charge is already legally calculated by operators to include the costs of operational management and debt recovery. Artificial inflation of this nature violates the BPA Code of Practice and the principles of proportionality upheld in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
5.3. Furthermore, the Claimant demands a total "Amount claimed" of £194.92, leaving an unspecified, hidden deficit of £24.92 completely unaccounted for in the narrative of the PoC.
5.4. While the Claimant requests interest at 8% per annum under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, they have failed to provide the mandatory calculations required by CPR 16.4(2). The PoC fail to state the date from which interest runs, the total interest accrued, or the daily rate. Any procedural delays in bringing this matter to court rest entirely with the Claimant, and interest cannot be claimed as an unquantified penalty to mask arbitrary fee padding. Numerous County Courts routinely strike out parking claims in their entirety on the basis of such non-compliant and inflated pleadings.
6. Landowner Authority and Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) Compliance
6.1. 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.
6.2. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that it has complied fully and flawlessly with all mandatory statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to transfer liability from the driver to the Defendant as the vehicle keeper.
7. Conclusion & Order Sought
7.1. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss or strike out the claim due to the technical failings of the payment method provided, the de minimis nature of the remaining variance, the Claimant's failure to establish keeper liability, and the fundamentally non-compliant, inflated nature of the Particulars of Claim.
