Court Claim Papers Served - Smart Parking

Coupon-mad

Just search the forum for a memorable few words or line from that and you'll see it's a template reply we never need to see again! You will also see what happens next in your hundreds of search results. Read a few!

Meanwhile, as your case is quiet this month:

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

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.

LardyDah

have already completed the survey 

Gr1pr

Standard stuff,  file it and wait for the inevitable MCOL Money Claim to arrive in the post 

We can help you through it 

Meanwhile,  please fill in the current government public survey consultation mentioned by coupon mad,  to try to achieve change 

Coupon-mad

LardyDah said:

have already completed the survey 

Great stuff.

Probably best to edit your thread title to the stage you are at, because it isn't CST Law.

All cases are exactly the same. Yours is part of a huge batch that Smart Parking moved on to DCB Legal this year for the first time, just like these ones (also revived from 2022):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6361161/smart-parking-ltd-cst-law-parking-ticket/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6454844/was-cst-law-but-now-dcb-legal-for-smart-parking/p1

Your case will now go to a Claim Form which is easy to defend and DCB Legal will discontinue in 2026.

You need to read:

- Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread about defence 

- any Smart Parking claim threads.

There are 35 Smart claim threads linked in a reply I made about rogue claims, on p14 of that Public Consultation thread.

LardyDah

Hi All 
Your help again please, received this whilst on holiday so thankfully managed to file an acknowledgement of service yesterday to allow me more time to respond. 
Attached letter outlines the particulars of the claim. If you lovely people are able to confirm if my below defence is good to submit. I am a little confused as some of the newbies thread mentions 30 paragraphs where I can only seem to find this template with 10. Have included all of them and not just paragraph 3 for clarity please. Also mixed messages about if to file online or not so confirmation of the current status on this as well would be helpful. 

  

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3.On both consecutive days namely, 13th November 2020 and 14th November 2020 the Defendant paid the correct parking fee so there is no breach by conduct. The charges attempt to penalise the Defendant for using the parking app which mistakenly having the incorrect vehicle auto selected. Despite the Defendant advising the claimant of this error by means of appeal which was refused. The correct amount was paid on both occasions, and despite the landowner requesting that the 2 x PCN issued by Smart Parking for the alleged breach of the parking contract on private property were dropped the Claimant has decided to continue to pursue the claim.

Due the 'major keying error' of the Defendant putting in the old VRM but having paid for parking. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the D's time in the car park. Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources, and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Nellymoser

3 further redactions needed in your posted images -  Car reg in POC,  Claim No. and password in IMPORTANT NOTE. Circle with 3 dots allows you to edit/delete your posts.

LardyDah

Oops now amended 

Gr1pr

Make the paragraph starting with DUE paragraph 4, renumber the rest as 5 to 11

You appear to be defending as the admitted driver who paid in full, twice, so I have not mentioned anything about adding the untruth paragraph seen in other recent cases 

When complete and the final defence draft, ready to go,  you follow the instructions on submitting into the start defence box on MCOL,  copy paste, save,  submit 

No email,  no posting either   ( no paperwork   )

Coupon-mad

Are you admitting to driving because you already did, in an earlier appeal?

Normally we never would

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 28/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25