Smart Parking + DCB Claim

elithia

Hi all, 

I've received a LOC a few weeks ago from DCB legal on behalf of Smart Parking for two PCNs relating to two incidents in March 2023. I wasn't able to dispute these at any earlier stage due to changes of address - I wasn't aware the PCNs existed until DCB letters started to appear. I did respond to the LOC with the generic response advised in this forum, and I received a reply a few days ago still saying I need to pay in 30 days etc. I'm aware replying was futile anyway, and I know a court claim is imminent so I'm just positing here to get some advice on the angle I should take.

One of the PCNs, I have bank statement evidence of a transaction to smart parking at 11.25am and the pictures of my old car from APNR camera evidence show my car entering at 11.21 and existing at 12.33. For the other, I don't have anything for, and also have no idea whether I was driving as the car was shared at the time. I haven't seen any evidence proving or disproving that a ticket was purchased - it is only pictures of the car, that was I was the keeper of, entering and exiting the car park. Should I just defend both claiming no keeper liability? Especially considering I've read that Smart Parking don't follow the necessary POFA regs in their NTKs?

Thanks in advance. 

kryten3000

Wait for the claim to see what the particulars say.  Don't do their job for them by providing details that they don't know about.  Definitely question their compliance with the POFA and also put them to strict proof of their authority to operate.

If these claims are like the usual DCB ones, they will discontinue later in the process provided you submit a robust defence based on the Newbies template. 

Coupon-mad

Definitely DO NOT admit to driving in the defence. Smart Parking only started using the keeper liability law this year!

elithia

Thanks both. So should I focus my defence on them not being able to hold me liable as the keeper, and not mention any extra details such as the bank statement record or getting them to prove that no ticket was actually purchased by the driver? 

kryten3000

Use the template defence and the special DCB Legal paragraph 3:

"Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

Use the template defence and the special DCB Legal paragraph 3:

"Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

They haven't yet got a claim but just to add to this, when the template claim arrives the OP could add a suggestion of contempt of court for the signatory of the claim (almost certainly) lying about keeper liability.

@elithia here are a few threads ahead of you in this game:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6609963/n1sdt-from-dcb-legal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6610041/conditions-of-ccj-staying-my-record

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6609990/dcbl-parking-defence

Their paragraph 3 of defence will help you when it's your turn.  Easy peasy to defend. Easier than any appeal.

 

elithia

I have now received the claim form - here are the particulars as it won't let me upload the photo for some reason:

Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXXXXX at XXXXX Street XXXXXX.

2. The dates of contravention are 21/03/2023, 22/03/2023 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:Insufficient Paid Time

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £340 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

This is what is written verbatum. 

I've looked at the template defences posted by others, and I'm not sure there's anything to add in terms of my own details in addition to the keeper defence. I do have the bank statement transaction matching one of the days in question in the claim in the locker though. I'm not sure if it was me or someone else driving though. 

I have submitted the AOS already. I believe my deadline for the defence is 30/07. 

Gr1pr

What was the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

What date was the AOS completed   ?

Wait for the new July 2025 defence template later this week 

elithia

Date of issue is the 02/07.

I completed the AOS today (08/07). I'm not worried about having maximum time - I just want to get it done. 

No problem - I will hold out for that. Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Yep I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed.

elithia

Here is my Paragraph 3 of the new defence: 

3. The Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the dates stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 21/03/2023 and 22/03/2023, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 The Defendant has, on multiple occasions, made genuine efforts to obtain further information to understand the basis of the Claimant’s allegations. Specifically, the Defendant requested evidence to substantiate the claim of “insufficient paid time” as referenced in Paragraph 3 of the Claim. In response, the Claimant’s representatives provided only photographs of the Defendant’s vehicle, allegedly taken on 21/03/2023 and 22/03/2023. When the Defendant contested the adequacy of these images as evidence of “insufficient paid time,” no further explanation or supporting documentation was provided by the Claimant.

As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never received by the Defendant, and in any event, the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements set out under POFA 2012, Schedule 4. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

Any feedback/ advice on this would be greatly appreciated.