Smart Parking - DCBL - 28/12/2021

ShartParking

Hoping for some help with my situation.

Received my first letter from DCBL 22nd May 2025 - with the classic final notice £160 outstanding narrative. The original fine was dated 28/12/2021 for parking in Havens Bank Retail Park Exeter (which has glowing online reviews). Reason for fine : Insufficient paid time. Never received the original fine from Smart Parking in the first place.

Honestly, don't really remember the specific trip to that location as it was over 3-1/2 years ago. At that time I was a student and living in Bristol, had family in Exeter, probably went out just after christmas, yadda yadda. I moved a lot whilst in Bristol and had to change my v5 numerous times so there is every chance this original fine fell through the cracks, and got sent to an old address.

Upon advice I've seen on the forum, I have ignored the letter and not paid anything. I emailed both the data protection officers of Smart Parking and DCBL advising any future correspondence to be sent to my correct and current address.

I have received another two letters from DCBL since the 22nd May asking for the amount to be paid. The most recent has now stated that they are recommending to Smart Parking to seek legal action - however I have one final chance to pay the amount.

 After reading the newbies thread, I just have some unanswered questions. POPLA isn't something (from what I understand) I can file for now, as well as even appealing with Smart Parking at this stage.

IF, this goes to court, what can I actually provide as evidence for not being liable to pay this fine? I have no idea what Smart Parking have on their side, in the way of photos of my car, time based evidence etc. I have not seen the original fine so not sure how they present evidence within that proving you owe money. All I have is my excuse of 'not receiving the original fine'.

If there is a post or thread that I have missed that explains/helps more about my situation and what to do, I would be more than grateful if someone can link me to it. 

Should I in this instance commit the ultimate sin and just pay the fine?

TLDR - didn't receive original fine 3-1/2 years ago, DCBL chasing for payment, unsure of what to actually do

Gr1pr

Definitely not a fine,  just a pcn, an invoice 

Ignore DCBL, powerless debt collectors,  see post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Too late for any appeals,  forget about those stages

They are the ones who must prove their case, with exhibits,  you dont have to prove anything as a defendant 

Not receiving paperwork is no defence,  nothing to see there 

Definitely do not pay 

Wait for a Letter of Claim giving you 30 days notice,  or an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  meanwhile Ignore the powerless debt collectors letters but ensure that they have the correct address for the service of papers if you move 

ShartParking

Thanks very much for your quick reply.

I requested that Smart Parking updated my address and got this reply:

Good morning, 

Thank you for your email.

Due to the length of time your Parking Charge has been open, we have now referred this to a debt recovery agency who are handling the matter on our behalf.

Please refer to your most recent correspondence which will advise you of your next steps regarding this matter.

We cannot assist you any further.

-------------

DCBL acknowledged they had removed an old address and would send any correspondence to my current one. I can only assume if a letter of claim is issued, it will be sent here hopefully.

In this forums experience, how likely is it that Smart will actually try to take this further?

Gr1pr

The Data Rectification Notice should be emailed to the DPO at Smart Parking 

Currently not so Smart haha started issuing claims , but that doesn't mean that a court hearing will happen 

Any Letter of Claim giving the keeper 30 days notice is likely to come from DCB Legal 

Coupon-mad

ShartParking said:

Thanks very much for your quick reply.

I requested that Smart Parking updated my address and got this reply:

Good morning, 

Thank you for your email.

Due to the length of time your Parking Charge has been open, we have now referred this to a debt recovery agency who are handling the matter on our behalf.

Please refer to your most recent correspondence which will advise you of your next steps regarding this matter.

We cannot assist you any further.

-------------

DCBL acknowledged they had removed an old address and would send any correspondence to my current one. I can only assume if a letter of claim is issued, it will be sent here hopefully.

In this forums experience, how likely is it that Smart will actually try to take this further?

You will get a claim form later this year. It is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT.

Then they will discontinue in 2026.

If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.

ChirpyChicken

I would defend it on no keeper liability 

Ralph-y

in a way it matters not what defence you use .... it will be discontinued days / weeks before the hearing date 

ShartParking

I see okay, thanks!

I appreciate that this is likely covered somewhere in the newbies thread and I have been trying my best to understand the next best steps here but being honest.. I am struggling and need my hand held a little. 

Can someone outline my actual next steps from here please? I am seeing something about completing the moneyclaim link and to ask for more time to build a defense. Is this something I should do, or should I just go right ahead and defend this now?

ShartParking

Okay I think I have worked this out on MCOL and also put together the defense based on the templates I have managed to find. I just need help with paragraph 3, my own defense. 

I have found something similar and adjusted to my own situation... does this work? 

3.The defendant denies all claims made by the Claimant. 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 around this time. 

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 28/12/2021 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 £160 on private land) and there 

were no damages incurred whatsoever.

ChirpyChicken

No that isnt suitable
Please follow my advice and base it on no keeper liability 
And don't rush it. It doesnt help or make the process any quicker 

ShartParking

This is what I have so far based on the templates found on the forum. 

Can you point in me the direction of where to find a 'no keeper liability' template to work with? 
I thought this was only for Scotland/NI claims due to a difference in motoring law and wasn't aware this is something I can use as a defense in England?


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.

3.

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))'.