Smart Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

lilycat2020

Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2025

Coupon-mad Posts: 154,153 Forumite 

31 July 2023 at 5:58AM edited 14 August at 7:07PM

Is this the correct one? which has 10 paragraphs ?

and when you advise reading the first two posts do you mean the box with advice dated:

Coupon-mad Posts: 154,153 Forumite

26 February 2020 at 5:30PM edited 14 August at 7:08PM ?

Sorry for acting like a dimwit, I am just very stressed out about the entire situation.

Thank you once again, Coupon-mad. 

Gr1pr

Yes, 26th Feb is post 1 with the background advice,  and 31st july is post 2, containing the 10 paragraph template defence 

lilycat2020

@Coupon-mad many thanks for your patience and kindness. I plan to read and draft tommorrow.

lilycat2020

Good Evening All 

I have attempted to draft my defence and I am hoping someone would be kind enough to give me their opinion on it.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance.

My draft is as follows:

Paragraph 1  and 2 to start. 

Added at the bottom of paragraph 2:

The Claimant has not shown that the Defendant was in fact the driver at the time of the alleged breach of contract. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car, and as the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. 

3. The first I heard of the parking charge was by post, months later after the date of the alleged contravention and felt harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters as such the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not serving the NTK to within 14 days accordingly the Court is invited to strike the claim out.   

The Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable for the breach of the terms on the signs (contract) for the reason of Unauthorised Parking.  

The Driver states that the sign at the site are not prominent, clear or legible as the driver enters the site from the drivers seat and from all parking spaces and therefore the Claimant has not complied with The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 which discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge which has not been provided. Due to sparsely placed signage it is not clear that alleged terms would be applicable if parked in the marked disabled bay.  
 
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. 

Furthermore, the bay on which the Driver parked the vehicle was situated in the hospital site and marked as a disabled parking bay. The vehicle in question had been registered at the hospital site and as such it was reasonable for the driver to assume that parking in the marked disabled parking bay whilst displaying the valid blue badge was permitted.  

There was no signage in the area to indicate that the marked disabled parking bay was no longer in operation or parking was not permitted regardless of the vehicle being registered at the site, as such it was reasonable for the driver to assume that he was permitted to park in the marked bay whilst displaying the valid blue badge . 

As argued above, the terms on the sign were not seen and the area was not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver did not consent to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because contract because there is no contract capable of being established. This argument is strengthened as there are not any signs in the area which negated the marked disabled parking bay for blue badge holders.  

Paragraphs 4 - 10 to end. 

Gr1pr

You are not appealing,  you are defending as keeper 

lilycat2020

@ Gr1pr thanks for the correction.  I've reposted.  Is the defence OK otherwise or did I need to reduce word count or amend in any way? Thanks for your help so far. 

My draft is as follows:

Paragraph 1  and 2 to start. 

Added at the bottom of paragraph 2:

The Claimant has not shown that the Defendant was in fact the driver at the time of the alleged breach of contract. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car, and as the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only defending as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. 

3. The first I heard of the parking charge was by post, months later after the date of the alleged contravention and felt harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters as such the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not serving the NTK to within 14 days accordingly the Court is invited to strike the claim out.   

The Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable for the breach of the terms on the signs (contract) for the reason of Unauthorised Parking.  

The Driver states that the sign at the site are not prominent, clear or legible as the driver enters the site from the drivers seat and from all parking spaces and therefore the Claimant has not complied with The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 which discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge which has not been provided. Due to sparsely placed signage it is not clear that alleged terms would be applicable if parked in the marked disabled bay.  
 
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. 

Furthermore, the bay on which the Driver parked the vehicle was situated in the hospital site and marked as a disabled parking bay. The vehicle in question had been registered at the hospital site and as such it was reasonable for the driver to assume that parking in the marked disabled parking bay whilst displaying the valid blue badge was permitted.  

There was no signage in the area to indicate that the marked disabled parking bay was no longer in operation or parking was not permitted regardless of the vehicle being registered at the site, as such it was reasonable for the driver to assume that he was permitted to park in the marked bay whilst displaying the valid blue badge . 

As argued above, the terms on the sign were not seen and the area was not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver did not consent to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because contract because there is no contract capable of being established. This argument is strengthened as there are not any signs in the area which negated the marked disabled parking bay for blue badge holders.  

Paragraphs 4 - 10 to end. 

Coupon-mad

Needs to be in the third person (not "I did this") and every paragraph requires a number.

1505grandad

As this case is Smart parking from an event years ago I believe the usual "untruth" para should be included?

May I suggest lilycat 2020 refers to the following Defence which includes the above para:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81639784/#Comment_81639784

Coupon-mad

lilycat2020 said:

Dear All 

It has been some time since I have received any letters from Smart Parking, they sent 3 letters in just as many weeks recently requesting payment.  After reading some posts on the forum I ignored and anticipated a claim form to arrive.

The claim form.has arrived today and is dated 18 August 2025.

The form states I must respond. I have tried to pick up some advice from another thread but I am so confused as to what to do as the thread stated I have to submit a defence( template of 10 paragraphs) and then went on to say the template has changed to 8 paragraphs

I couldn't find the 8 paragraph one. Any help would be much appreciated. 

They are claiming on the basis of breach of contract. 

I would be very grateful for your assistance. 

Show us the claim form with the same 4 things redacted as seen on every Smart / DCB Legal claim thread.

There are a dozen linked on page 14 of the Public Consultation thread and they all include the extra 'job lot of claims with untruths about the POFA' paragraph.

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.

lilycat2020

@Coupon-mad many thanks for your advice and time. 

I will change the wording and re-post just to make sure I've got it right.

When you write: Show us the claim form with the same 4 things redacted as seen on every Smart / DCB Legal claim thread.

Do you want me to photograph the actual form and post it on this thread?

In terms of the consultation I will be completing that on Friday this week, well before the deadline  just in case I need to get some assistance from the forum. I just need to submit this defence on time that's why I have delayed completing it. Thanks