Parking ticket issued by Smart Parking scum bags

Gr1pr

As above,  the content must be accurate and true, so alter paragraphs 2 and 3 as required 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 22/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 27/12/25 and before or on 10/01/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/01/26

I was going to say don't mention flow charts else you will have @Coupon-mad down on you like a ton of bricks but I see it is too late!

ChirpyChicken

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 22/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 27/12/25 and before or on 10/01/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/01/26

I was going to say don't mention flow charts else you will have @Coupon-mad down on you like a ton of bricks but I see it is too late!

I like a good flow chart!!!

Coupon-mad

Flow charts, meh! Horrible childish things IMHO. An abomination and impossible for parking cases because the process flow is too complicated. If readers want an easier explanation of private parking they can read the MSE Guide (but it doesn't cover court defences, we do).

It is telling that MSE (in their Guide) didn't attempt a flow chart, either.

Anyway if the OP appealed months ago, all they do is remove the sentence highlighted.

Steveyg777

Thanks for raising that point. I’ve gone back through everything very carefully. At no stage in any of this process have I ever formally admitted to being the driver. The Money Claim Online procedure doesn’t ask who was driving, and I’ve never ticked anything or submitted anything that identifies the driver.

The appeal letter people keep referring to does not actually say, “I was the driver”, “I parked”, or anything that legally confirms I was the one driving the vehicle. Any first-person wording was written from the perspective of the person dealing with the ticket as the registered keeper, explaining circumstances on behalf of the party in the vehicle. That does not amount to a legal admission of driver identity.

Crucially, even the Claimant themselves don’t appear confident about who was driving. Their Particulars of Claim specifically state that I am being pursued “as the driver, or in the alternative as keeper pursuant to POFA Schedule 4”. That wording demonstrates they do not know who the driver was and are trying both angles because Smart Parking historically do not use POFA correctly and cannot normally establish keeper liability. If they genuinely had evidence I was the driver, they would have stated it positively instead of relying on alternatives.

So, driver identity is not established, no legal admission has been made, and the Claimant’s own pleadings show uncertainty. Combined with Smart Parking’s well-documented failures with POFA, signage issues, unreasonable delays, and exaggerated claims, they still have a credibility problem long before they even get near arguing about who was driving.

Gr1pr

Except for the fact that it will never see a courtroom so won't matter once DCB LEGAL discontinue 

Woodstok2000

Steveyg777 said:

Thanks for raising that point. I’ve gone back through everything very carefully. At no stage in any of this process have I ever formally admitted to being the driver. The Money Claim Online procedure doesn’t ask who was driving, and I’ve never ticked anything or submitted anything that identifies the driver.

The appeal letter people keep referring to does not actually say, “I was the driver”, “I parked”, or anything that legally confirms I was the one driving the vehicle. Any first-person wording was written from the perspective of the person dealing with the ticket as the registered keeper, explaining circumstances on behalf of the party in the vehicle. That does not amount to a legal admission of driver identity.

Crucially, even the Claimant themselves don’t appear confident about who was driving. Their Particulars of Claim specifically state that I am being pursued “as the driver, or in the alternative as keeper pursuant to POFA Schedule 4”. That wording demonstrates they do not know who the driver was and are trying both angles because Smart Parking historically do not use POFA correctly and cannot normally establish keeper liability. If they genuinely had evidence I was the driver, they would have stated it positively instead of relying on alternatives.

So, driver identity is not established, no legal admission has been made, and the Claimant’s own pleadings show uncertainty. Combined with Smart Parking’s well-documented failures with POFA, signage issues, unreasonable delays, and exaggerated claims, they still have a credibility problem long before they even get near arguing about who was driving.

"If I'd been knowledgeable of the area I would've just driven off going in the direction I needed to travel,"

From your original post...

Im not arguing this  categorically identifies the driver, just that this could be where that impressio  was given and so may be something the scumbags are banking on too.

Coupon-mad

Not that it matters.

As long as the parking event was more than a year ago (a time when Smart always used to fail to use the POFA wording) just use the Smart Parking Template Defence and play the game through to discontinuance this Summer.

Please don't ask us about the first letters or the DQ or Mediation. Spare us! This is why we have the first 8 steps in the Template Defence thread ... you can think of the 8 steps as a numbered flowchart if you prefer!

Steveyg777

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 22/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 27/12/25 and before or on 10/01/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/01/26

I was going to say don't mention flow charts else you will have @Coupon-mad down on you like a ton of bricks but I see it is too late!

yes i did the AoS. thanks for the dates. I'm not even going to get started on flow diagrams. but i hadn't even come across mention of there being a separate template specifically for smart parking and so i wasted 3 hours of my life last night when it could have taken 20 minutes or so, and felt extremely stressed by this whole process too. anyway, i'm getting there lol.

regarding the defence, I changed points 2 and 3 to the following (changes in all caps), is that right/ok???:

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 THE EVENTS, INCLUDING WHO WAS DRIVING, save as set out below, and ADMITS ONLY THAT THEY WERE THE REGISTERED KEEPER AND RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THE VEHICLE.

3. The Defendant was not the only potential user of the vehicle and no driver has been admitted or identified. The Defendant received the Notice to Keeper on 2nd September 2023 relating to an alleged event on 4th August 2023, some 29 days later. The Claimant did not serve a Notice to Keeper within the statutory 14-day period required to hold a registered keeper liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, the Claimant is unable to pursue the keeper and any purported liability fails. The passage of time and lack of meaningful detail from the Claimant also prevents the Defendant from recalling events OR DETERMINING WHO WAS DRIVING. THE DEFENDANT’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARKING PROCESS, INCLUDING PAYMENT AND ASSISTING WITH VEHICLE MANAGEMENT, DOES NOT EQUATE TO AN ADMISSION OF DRIVING, AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PAYMENT APP FURTHER COMPLICATED THE SITUATION.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't alter the Smart Parking defence even by a word. No need!

Especially - eek - I really would not add that end bit. It puts you in the vehicle. Don't add this stuff.