Smart Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

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

Yes, redacted like you see on those dozen linked Smart claim threads on p14 of that thread.

  

lilycat2020

Dear All 

I've taken on board your advice and changed the defence.

Any further guidance/ feedback/ suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you 

The defence is as follows:

Template paragraphs 1 and 2 to start 

3. 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 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. 

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year – as they have reportedly filed a ‘job lot’ of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 – Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper 

5. The first the Defendant 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.   

6.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.  
 
7. The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this defence at all, the Defendant submits 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. 

8.Furthermore, the bay in 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 parking was permitted in the marked bay whilst displaying the valid blue badge . 

9.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 was 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.  

Template paragraphs 4 - 11 (albeit re-numbered) to end.

lilycat2020

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

Was the following wording what you were referring to?

Particulars of Claim
1. The Defendant (d) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle [REG PLATE] at [LOCATION]
2. The dates of contravention are [DATE] and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Unauthorised Parking.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at the rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment
3. Costs and court fees 

Coupon-mad

Yep that's what we needed to see.

I'd remove this from para 3:

"This applies 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."

And I don't think all the rest (plus the template words) will fit in on MCOL as it's too long. I'd suggest removing all this too (save all this for WS stage):

"5. The first the Defendant 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.   

6.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.  
 
7. The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this defence at all, the Defendant submits 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."

Le_Kirk

What it the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form?  On what date did you complete the AoS?

1505grandad

"I parked in a bay marked as disabled with a valid blue badge. "

FWIW  -  a reminder for the regulars of the above recently posted by the OP (22/8).

lilycat2020

@ 1505grandad

What does FWIW and Op mean?
Sorry I'm new to all of this 

lilycat2020

@Le_Kirk the date of issue is 18 August and I completed the AOS on 27 Aug 

lilycat2020

@Coupon-mad many thanks as always I will make the suggested amendments 

Le_Kirk

lilycat2020 said:

@Le_Kirk the date of issue is 18 August and I completed the AOS on 27 Aug 

With an issue date of 18/08/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/09/25