Smart Parking DCB Legal court claim 2025

bizzyblue13

UPDATE

Issue date of claim form: 27/08/25

AoS submitted: 30/08/25

Just received Final Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL Ltd.

I'm not panicking and following the advice of the sticky: I've contacted both DPO's to get them to update my new address and I'm ignoring these letters and stowing them away. I'm one of those people who received their first letter 5 years after the alleged offence. I no longer live at the first property and I no longer own the car.

Just a couple of questions *should* this not be discontinued and go to the County Court:

- If I need to provide evidence of the signage at the alleged location, I can only provide photos of the signage today, not five years ago when the alleged offence took place. Does this matter?

UPDATE: 29/9/2025

Still waiting on the questionnaire from HMCTS. DCB Legal have emailed providing their response to the questionnaire and saying that they are prepared to settle to save the court time. Clearly a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying up. I'm staying firm and sticking to the protocol on the sticky. 

Car1980

Five years ago? Who is the parking co? G24?

It'll go to a county court claim and then be discontinued in the autumn/winter.  But you have 2 more letters from DCB Legal to come.

The onus is on them to produce signage, but feel free to take photos and store them should you need them. They'll have trouble if it's 5 years ago, which suggests this will never go to a hearing.

bizzyblue13

Yep, the alleged incident was August 2020. I received my first letter from DCB Ltd at my current address in May 2025.

The company is Smart Parking Limited.

Coupon-mad

And Smart Parking can't hold registered keepers liable. Remember that when you get the claim form from DCB Legal later on, as it will need mentioning in defence.

You could reply to DCB Ltd, citing the clause in the industry's current joke 'Joint Code' that says if a PCN was not received, e.g. due to anew address, it must be re-issued at the original rate. They will refuse but it looks better on you later, if you tried this.

And this is your task this Summer while your case is quiet:

If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government NOW that:

a) you were never offered appeal due to the use of an old address but in the new Code, there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY THIRD PARTIES LIKE DCB LTD DEMANDING MORE MONEY, OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' AT A PREMIUM AND REFUSING TO RE-ISSUE PCNs. ABSOLUTE JOKE.

c). Tell them about your experience and the refusal tk re-issue the PCN you never received*.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it in August at the latest pleeease! We will discuss it on that thread.

*In your case your evidence for 'banning DRA fees' will be far better if you get the refusal from DCB Ltd to re-issue the PCN first. Show that refusal to the MHCLG as a picture to prove that they offer zero service to consumers and no fee should be added for this farce stage.

bizzyblue13

Thanks for the reply. I will endeavour to respond to the consultation in August.

Can you point me in the direction of the clause in the joint code? Just so I know what I'm citing.

Coupon-mad

Search it for 're-issue' or 're-issuance' or either of those without the hyphen.

bizzyblue13

Thanks, @Coupon-mad.

I've just received my claim form and have followed the instructions by completing the AoS on MCOL.

A draft of my para 3 response in my defence would be:

The Defendant notes that the alleged contravention is said to have occurred approximately five years ago (09/08/2020). The first correspondence relating to this matter was only received by the Defendant approximately five years after the date of the alleged event (23/05/2025). Due to the extraordinary delay, the Defendant is unable to recall who the driver of the vehicle was at that time and is therefore unable to identify the driver. The Defendant denies being liable as the registered keeper, as Smart Parking Ltd do not rely upon nor comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

Would this suffice?

Gr1pr

Please post your issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also the AOS date too

Please edit your out of date thread title to something more suitable like 

Smart Parking DCB Legal court claim 2025 

bizzyblue13

Updated title and put dates at the top

Coupon-mad

You are missing the extra point that's in every Smart defence. Read a few!

bizzyblue13

How about the below? I think I've found the additional point (para 4) from the gym thread.

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.

3. 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 09/08/2020 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was 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 notes that the alleged contravention is said to have occurred approximately five years ago (09/08/2020). The first correspondence relating to this matter was only received by the Defendant approximately five years after the date of the alleged event (23/05/2025). Due to the extraordinary delay, the Defendant is unable to recall who the driver of the vehicle was at that time and is therefore unable to identify the driver. 

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, 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 Defendant was not driving and, in fact, 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.