DCB Legal/ParkMaven claim - broken payment machine. Can anyone help with my defence?

[buxton.mind]

Hi everyone. I'm looking for some pointers on my defence before I submit it through MCOL.
I had parked in a shopping centre for an event, I had come back early the next morning and tried to pay on exit - but the machine wasn't working.
I tried to pay through their late payment portal the next day, but they told me it was too late!

I used MSE's template.
- Is para 3 (broken machine / frustrated contract) sufficiently concise or does it need trimming?
- Is the BPA February 2025 Code point (para 8) worth keeping given the December 2025 contravention date?
- Any issues with admitting driver in para 2 given the facts?

Generally, is there anything missing or any red flags before I file?
I hope it's short enough.

Thanks for your time.

Reason on claim: "No Valid Parking Session"
Amount claimed: £259.24 (£170 PC + £35 court fee + £50 legal costs)
AOS filed: Yes

My draft:

1. The Claimant's case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false fee of £50 described as "legal representative's costs" and inflated the parking charge to £170 from an original £30, constituting an attempt at double recovery which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that a parking charge covers all costs of enforcement including the pre-action letter chain; the same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice. Interest should also be disallowed. The court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation is denied. It is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle [PLATE] on [DATE] at [LOCATION].
3. The Claimant's stated reason is "No Valid Parking Session." This is denied. The car park operates on a pay-on-exit basis. At departure in the early hours of [NEXT DAY] (approximately 3am), the payment machine was non-operational and the Defendant was unable to pay despite attempting to do so. Departure after over an hour was a practical necessity. Upon returning home, the Defendant promptly attempted payment via the Claimant's own late payment facility. The Claimant's system rejected this and advised a PCN would follow. The Defendant holds email evidence of this attempt, demonstrating good faith and showing the Claimant was on notice of the circumstances before issuing the PCN. A party cannot be in breach of a contractual obligation where performance was rendered impossible by the other party's own failure to maintain working payment infrastructure.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that any term was breached. To form a contract there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 s71 mandates a test of fairness. Paying regard to Schedule 2 examples 6, 10, 14 and 18, and s62 duties of fair and open dealing, the Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs of signage on the material date.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including any contract, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner.
6. To impose a parking charge, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) adequate notice and prominence of the charge and any relevant obligations. Neither has been demonstrated. The charge arises from a non-operational payment machine and is fully distinguished from Beavis.
7. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis (an £85 charge covered all costs and generated a large profit). In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), HHJ Hegarty held that costs inflating a charge were disproportionate to the minor cost of a letter chain and "would appear to be penal."
8. The BPA Code of Practice, updated February 2025 and binding on the Claimant as a BPA Approved Operator, prohibits issuing charges where payment was not possible due to circumstances outside the motorist's control, including non-operational payment machines. The alleged contravention date of 7 December 2025 falls after this update. Issuing and pursuing this claim is contrary to that Code.
9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum. Per the Explanatory Note at para 221, the creditor may not claim against the keeper for more than the unpaid parking charge as it stood when the notice to the driver was issued. There is no keeper liability for added fees and double recovery is expressly prohibited.
10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). DCB Legal, acting for this Claimant, almost invariably discontinues defended parking claims before any hearing. This pattern indicates a deliberate business model. The White Book annotation at r38.6.1 states that costs may be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably, notwithstanding the small claims track norm.