Defence I'm planning to send, grateful for any thoughts?
DEFENCE1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be held liable as the keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic, and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. They do not adequately set out the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum claimed, nor the strict basis on which the Defendant is pursued as the keeper. The claim discloses no clear cause of action and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. Impossibility of Performance and Genuine Attempts to PayThe vehicle entered the site at 16:47:53 on 16/08/2025. The driver made multiple genuine and serious attempts to pay for parking using the Claimant’s designated RingGo application. The application actively refused to process the payment and, after many failed attempts, generated a definitive system prompt at 16:59 stating: "Parking is currently free in this location. Please check nearby signs for when charges resume".
Because of a reasonable suspicion that the Claimant would unfairly attempt to penalise motorists for circumstances beyond their control, the driver deliberately captured these events to evidence their concerted effort to pay. The Defendant relies upon these contemporaneous screenshots—containing unalterable metadata demonstrating the exact time and system error—as
Exhibit A. No contract was breached because payment was actively prevented by the Claimant’s own equipment and software failure.
5. The Grace Period and Free Parking TariffThe Claimant's published tariff for this site confirms that parking is free from 17:00. The Claimant's legal representatives have stated that payment was required for the 13 minutes the vehicle was on site prior to 17:00. However, the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice mandates a grace period allowing a driver time to enter the site, read the terms, and attempt to make payment. The entire 13-minute window was consumed by the driver's multiple, frustrated attempts to use the Claimant's broken payment app.
6. Chronology of Ignored CorrespondenceThe Defendant has maintained a consistent dialogue with the Claimant and their representatives, yet at no point have the material issues been directly addressed:
- 15 September 2025: The Defendant appealed the initial charge, explicitly stating that the RingGo app denied payment and providing the metadata evidence of the timestamps.
- 8 October 2025: The Claimant rejected the appeal with a generic template stating that there were "no transactions" for the vehicle, entirely ignoring the fact that their own system blocked the transaction.
- 3 December 2025: The Defendant issued a further challenge, reiterating that a motorist cannot be penalised when the authorised channel blocks payment and declares the period free.
- 29 December 2025: The Claimant refused to engage with this evidence, simply stating the POPLA deadline had passed.
- 1 June 2026: The Defendant corresponded directly with DCB Legal, highlighting the multiple failed app attempts and questioning the typical grace period allowed before payment is due. DCB Legal disregarded the app failure, ignored the grace period question, and simply demanded a heightened balance of £264.48. This correspondence is attached as Exhibit B.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including its exact terms, prominence, lighting, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage and the corresponding digital payment infrastructure were contradictory and entirely inadequate to form any contract with the driver.
8. The Claimant claims a total of £170.00, representing the original Parking Charge and added damages. The Claimant’s added “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment confirms that such add-ons are designed to extort money from motorists and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
9. Even if a contract had been formed (which is expressly denied), the Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was not paid exclusively due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has the requisite standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name. A strict chain of authority is required.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
12. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.
Statement of TruthI believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
