DCB Legal - Preparing Defence

polar_opposite

Hi all,

I received a Parking Charge Notice from Smart Parking Ltd and decided to go the militant route of ignoring all correspondence (whilst making sure I kept the abundant number of letters as evidence). 

The PCN was passed on to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and after I continued to ignore them, they passed it on to CST Law (which is a trading name of Credit Style Ltd).

Just before New Year, CST Law sent me a Letter Before Claim which prompted me to trawl these forums for advice from people who have been in a similar situation. I’ve used the NEWBIES thread as a guiding light so far.

As I’d received the Letter Before Claim, I contacted CST Law (via their online contact form) with the following:

Dear Sir or Madam

Your Ref. #######

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: Smart Parking Ltd

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't mess about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[address]

I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (#######) dated 27th of December 2023, but not received until the 5th of January 2023, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggests that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, and as the registered keeper I deny any liability or entering into any contractual agreement, as stated by your customer Smart Parking Ltd. I will be as well making a complaint to Smart Parking Ltd client's landowner about their predatory conduct. 

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Parking Charge Notice” (#######). In this letter are the particulars “Date of Contravention” as the 15/01/2023 and “Date Issued” as the 01/02/2023.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 18th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period”. I received the letter on the 24th day from the date of the contravention. The letter was posted to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14-day cut-off.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA related to the relevant period and it's vague in its wording - which also fails to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 Section 9 of POFA - and consequently, Smart Parking Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle [reg plate no].

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you/your clients to cancel the PCN and erase my data within 14 days of this email. 

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of Smart Parking Ltd filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500. This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully,

[polar_opposite]

Since submitting the above correspondence, I have received a response from Credit Style Ltd which reads as follows:

Our Client: Smart Parking Limited

Account Number: #######

Amount Outstanding: £170.00

We have now received our Client's response to the query you raised in respect of the above account. Our Client has instructed us as follows:-

We can confirm that we do not currently issue charges under PoFA. Instead we are required to request the keeper details within 28 days of the contravention date, and then issue the charge promptly once these have been received. We can confirm that the contravention occurred on 15th January 2023 and the charge was issued to the motorist on 1st February 2023. Therefore we have acted appropriately in line with the BPA code of practice. Please continue to pursue.

In the circumstances we now require payment of the above amount within seven days of the date of this letter, failing which we are instructed to proceed with legal action as previously advised.

Yours sincerely

Credit Style Limited

Annoyingly, Credit Style Limited are up to their usual tricks by dating the response letter as 23rd January 2024 and setting a seven-day deadline. I received the response on the 3rd February 2024, 4 days after the proposed deadline (not that I intend to pay anyway).

Please can anyone confirm if their response is legitimate and what my next steps are?

Is it a case of sitting tight and waiting for the next step of the process?

Thank you in advance.

Fruitcake

You should not have ignored the original PCN. That advice has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.  Had you appealed you would have then killed this off at PoPLA.

Never mind, that cannot now be helped.

You are now in ignore mode unless you get a court claim, which is very unlikely. Smart don't normally do court, and I doubt they would start with a one off PCN where the keeper cannot be held liable.

polar_opposite

Thanks for your reply. Fair enough about not ignoring it, I must have misread something at the time when the fine was issued. I was annoyed that I'd received the PCN after the "pay within 14 days or it doubles" ultimatum so it must have clouded my judgement. Sit tight and wait and see I suppose...

polar_opposite

Hi all, I am moving house soon and need clarification on what to do with regards to who to notify.

- Smart Parking Ltd?
- Debt Recovery Plus Ltd?
- CST Law?

All 3? 2 of the 3 (Smart Parking Ltd & CST Law)? 

As a precaution I will be forwarding my post for the next 3 months to my new address.

Le_Kirk

The normal advice is to send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO at Smart informing them of your new address for service as from DD/MN/YYYY and requiring them to ERASE your old data and to inform all and any of their sub-contractors and agents.  To be doubly sure you could inform CST Law but I would not bother with the debt collector!

polar_opposite

So it's been two years and I've finally been received my Claim Form from the courts. The Claim Form is from DCB Legal.

Time to prepare my defence, I'd be grateful if someone can give this the once over before I submit it on Wednesday 3rd June:

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes 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 an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. There can be no keeper liability in this case. At the time of this parking charge, this Claimant did not use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has confirmed as much in pre-action correspondence. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that it cannot hold a registered keeper liable where the mandatory statutory conditions have not been met.

4. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law. Further, this claim includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in bulk, on every undefended claim. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.

4.1. The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise this pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usual course of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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 Beavis.

8. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

10. 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

11. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

I have had to reword paragraph 3. I have changed it from:

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

To the following:

3. There can be no keeper liability in this case. At the time of this parking charge, this Claimant did not use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has confirmed as much in pre-action correspondence. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that it cannot hold a registered keeper liable where the mandatory statutory conditions have not been met.

ALL SMART PARKING CLAIMS FOR PCNS BEFORE 2025, ARE NON-POFA. ALL CASES ARE THE SAME.

Thank you in advance!

I look forward to celebrating in the DCB Legal Record Of Private Parking Court Claim Discontinuations thread 🙂


References:

Newbies Thread
Template Defence Thread
DCB Legal Defence Template
DCB Legal LOC Client: Smart Parking Ltd
Smart Parking claim via DCB Legal? Group info thread
DCB Legal Record Of Private Parking Court Claim Discontinuations

Gr1pr

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

I assume that you have based the above on the defence template post by @meltof ?

SMART PARKING do use Pofa2012 since last year, but likely didn't when the pcn was issued, so i am not convinced by the word does, rather than did not, or similar

polar_opposite

Thanks for the swift reply @Gr1pr, issue date is 28th May 2026, so I'll be submitting it 5 days after as per the advice of the forum. The above is the DCB Legal Defence Template post by @sluzz which I believe uses the updated Template Defence with the DCB Legal bit mixed in. Happy to be corrected if it's slightly out of date (the DCB Legal Defence Template by Sluzz is from December 2025). (EDIT: Updated to correct template by @Meltof to avoid any confusion in future)

I have updated paragraph 3 to the following, as per your comment:

3. There can be no keeper liability in this case. At the time of this parking charge, this Claimant did not use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has confirmed as much in pre-action correspondence. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that it cannot hold a registered keeper liable where the mandatory statutory conditions have not been met.

Gr1pr

Keep on that same sluzz thread until you see the newer update by member meltof posted on 12th April, not the earlier sluzz template

polar_opposite

I went back and double checked and it was out of date. I've now updated the original text to the updated version from the Template Defence Thread (whilst cross-checking it with the @Meltof post). Thank you for pointing that out! Glad I posted for a once over now. Keep up the good fight @Gr1pr.

Coupon-mad

Easy innit?

They'll discontinue by Xmas which is a complete scam of a deliberate MO and an abuse of the court. The MoJ seem blind to it.