PCN at Claim stage. DCB Legal. / Smart Parking.

TimBisley

Yeah, i'm well within the time limit. Thanks again for your help. 

TimBisley

Any thoughts on this one please:

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 16/09/2021, 28/09/2021 or 01/10/2021, 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

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, 2 of the 3 Notices to Keeper (NtKs), were not sent within 14 days of the alleged incidents and as these were ANPR cases, 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.

The defendant has written confirmation that all 3 PCNs have been cancelled by Smart Parking Ltd.

Coupon-mad

Change:

"However, 2 of the 3 Notices to Keeper (NtKs), were not sent within 14 days of the alleged incidents and as these were ANPR cases, the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements set out under POFA 2012,"

to the usual wording about the POFA and the signatory untruth seen in these Smart cases. All three PCNs were non-POFA worded and the person who signed the claim has lied about the POFA in every single Smart Parking claim, which is tens of thousands in 2025.

Read a couple of other Smart claim threads.

And please do the Consultation before Friday.

  

TimBisley

Is below (in bold) any better?

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 16/09/2021, 28/09/2021 or 01/10/2021, 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

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, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

The defendant has written confirmation from the land owner that all 3 PCNs have been cancelled by Smart Parking Ltd.

Coupon-mad

TimBisley said:

Is below (in bold) any better?

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 16/09/2021, 28/09/2021 or 01/10/2021, 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

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, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

The defendant has written confirmation from the land owner that all 3 PCNs have been cancelled by Smart Parking Ltd.

Yes that's it!

DCB Legal is misleading every recipient and every judge and court that is involved in EVERY Smart Parking case.

I think we should be suggesting that every Smart Parking Defendant should now report DCB Legal to:

- the SRA for breach of their professional standards;

- the CSA for breach of their standards for debt recovery letters;

- the CMA for a systemic breach of the Joint Code and the DMCC Act 2024;

All three complaints triggered by two things:

1. the 'misleading action' of using boilerplate POFA worded Particulars of Claim which (for ALL claims involving this client) blatantly lie to recipient Defendants about 'keeper liability' under a law that Smart Parking never used until this year. This misleading action has been repeated in tens of thousands of ancient, barrel scraping (2020/21 COVID pandemic / lockdown dated PCNs) court claims this year already

and

2. the misleading action of (if they still are...?) sending LBC demands on DCB Legal headed notepaper which carries the blue strap-line "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!" which is vexatious and wholly unreasonable for this law firm to use  (DCB Legal are not bailiffs). That appalling fly on the wall TV show features DCB Ltd not DCB Legal and only cases at a stage after obtaining judgment and HCEO writ. These Limited companies are two different legal entities and the LBC was sent at PRE action stage when there is no possibility of them or any firm in DCB 'Group' removing goods.

IMHO These two points must be investigated as a breach of standards for a solicitor, surely?

And in your case you also have:

3. the PCNs were cancelled by the landowner several days before the claim was issued. DCB Legal appear to be maintaining, dominating and profiting from claims with apparently no input from their clients after bulk data transfer. Not only is that conduct questionable in a sector that the government has just identified in their Public Consultation as in 'market failure' due to extremely (extortionately?) high profits, but it also breaches the DVLA KADOE rules which require the parking operator to remain at all times accountable as the data controllers. This looks like champertous conduct akin to assignment or debt purchase, none of which is allowed under DVLA KADOE rules.