MCOL for parking charges 5 years ago

Dane19

Hi All

I have just acknowledged a MCOL for 2 parking charges a week apart in July 2020, claimant (Smart Parking Limited)  reason unauthorized parking. i do not recall receiving any letters until just recently i had one from dcbl and now the claim bearing in mind it was the covid era where postal service was hit and miss so I'm presuming they sent it but i did not reach me. 

Google maps is showing it to be a residential area carpark so I'm guessing it must be a permit only car park and without going through the paperwork I'm assuming it was for deliveries i made.( should still have delivery notes etic)

I'm preparing my witness statement so few questions, since i don't have the original charge notice i wouldn't know weather it was pofa complaint so ,

1. Should i still use this argument considering now there is a limitation on words
2 Can i use the bpa grace period, does it apply in private car parks.
3 Is the anything else i can use for them delaying 5 years where recollection and evidences of the incident would be very difficult and on top of that they charging me interest for this period.

much appreciate any input.

Gr1pr

You are preparing your defence to the POC in the claim,  NOT your witness statement   !

Presumably its Smart Parking via DCB Legal 

1) Smart parking never complied with POFA 2012, so look at the advice given in the other recent cases

2) I believe that you meant consideration period,  which was in the BPA Code of Practice dated January 2020

3) same advice as in other court claims on here 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also the date that you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL 

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first too

Dane19

Yes sorry I meant defence, a bit ahead of myself  
yes smart via legal

issue 5/08/25
aos 12/08/25

Gr1pr

OK so read a couple of recent Smart Parking dcb legal cases and draft paragraphs 2 & 3

It seems to me that you were stopped  ( not parked   ) whilst picking up or dropping off deliveries,  a task allowed in the Laura Jopson appeal,  that you were allowed a consideration period, plus that Smart didn't invoke keeper liability by not complying with Pofa2012 

Coupon-mad

Smart Parking court claims can't hold registered keepers liable, due to their choice never to use the POFA 2012 on their NTKs until this year. So in 2020 during COVID these were both 'non-POFA' worded NTKs.

What does that mean for you? Do not imply who might have been driving in your defence. And call out DCB Legal for the lie in the POC which wrongly references POFA.

Copy a recent Smart defence that says that!

Dane19

How is this to add to the defense? I'm not going with the delivery at this point until I'm sure of it and find relevant paperwork confirming it.

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. Furthermore, the Claimant's decision to wait over five years to pursue this matter is both unreasonable and vexatious, causing significant prejudice to the Defendant's ability to mount a fair defense 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 due to this time duration save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3.1 The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the material time, and after such a long delay cannot reasonably be expected to know who was driving. Liability is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), which is the only mechanism by which a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. In particular, it is denied that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served within the prescribed time limits and with the prescribed statutory wording. The Defendant has no knowledge of the alleged parking contravention and no record of receiving any Notice to Keeper or letters from the Claimant. This was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when widespread postal disruption was reported nationally, further undermining any presumption of service. In the absence of evidence of both (i) the driver and (ii) strict compliance with POFA, the claim must fail.

3.2 The Particulars of Claim, issued by DCB Legal on behalf of Smart Parking, contains a false and unsubstantiated claim that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) were met via a Notice to Keeper. This is a material misrepresentation, as the Defendant has no record of receiving any such notice.

Coupon-mad

But you still haven't copied a recent Smart defence that mentions the lie in the POC which wrongly references POFA.

Dane19

Coupon-mad said:

But you still haven't copied a recent Smart defence that mentions the lie in the POC which wrongly references 

point 3.1 from a current defence is this ok now?

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. Furthermore, the Claimant's decision to wait over five years to pursue this matter is both unreasonable and vexatious, causing significant prejudice to the Defendant's ability to mount a fair defense 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 due to this time duration save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the material time, and after such a long delay cannot reasonably be expected to know who was driving. Liability is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), which is the only mechanism by which a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. In particular, it is denied that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served within the prescribed time limits and with the prescribed statutory wording. The Defendant has no knowledge of the alleged parking contravention and no record of receiving any Notice to Keeper or letters from the Claimant. This was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when widespread postal disruption was reported nationally, further undermining any presumption of service. In the absence of evidence of both (i) the driver and (ii) strict compliance with POFA, the claim must fail.

3.1 The Claimant has not relied upon the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, having failed to issue any Notice to Keeper that complied with Schedule 4, paragraph 8(4) and 8(5). The Defendant therefore considers the Claimant’s reliance on POFA within the Particulars of Claim to be invalid and misleading. Any assertion that keeper liability applies is untrue and, given that it is signed under a statement of truth, the Defendant avers that it risks amounting to a contempt of court should the Claimant persist with this position.

Coupon-mad

Dane19 said:

Coupon-mad said:

But you still haven't copied a recent Smart defence that mentions the lie in the POC which wrongly references 

point 3.1 from a current defence is this ok now?

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. Furthermore, the Claimant's decision to wait over five years to pursue this matter is both unreasonable and vexatious, causing significant prejudice to the Defendant's ability to mount a fair defense 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 due to this time duration save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the material time, and after such a long delay cannot reasonably be expected to know who was driving. Liability is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), which is the only mechanism by which a parking operator can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. In particular, it is denied that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was served within the prescribed time limits and with the prescribed statutory wording. The Defendant has no knowledge of the alleged parking contravention and no record of receiving any Notice to Keeper or letters from the Claimant. This was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when widespread postal disruption was reported nationally, further undermining any presumption of service. In the absence of evidence of both (i) the driver and (ii) strict compliance with POFA, the claim must fail.

3.1 The Claimant has not relied upon the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, having failed to issue any Notice to Keeper that complied with Schedule 4, paragraph 8(4) and 8(5). The Defendant therefore considers the Claimant’s reliance on POFA within the Particulars of Claim to be invalid and misleading. Any assertion that keeper liability applies is untrue and, given that it is signed under a statement of truth, the Defendant avers that it risks amounting to a contempt of court should the Claimant persist with this position.

Hope you defended it in time? Looks fine. They'll discontinue in 2026 anyway.

Did you manage to do the Public Consultation and read the guidance thread about that too?

Deadline extended to next Friday: FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline next week. See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam over 18 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.