Smart Parking unfairly taking me to court via DCBL. Please help!

hodlerjay

Hi everyone, 

Just needed some advice as I have just received a claim from Smart Parking/DCBL over an issue which was no fault of my own.

I followed Smart Parkings appeals process and sent an appeal to them on 11/10/2021 via the website (please see attached image for evidence) I am yet to receive any response from them or DRP apart from the message on the screen which said the appeal was successfully submitted and received.

After many years now they are chasing the debt through a new company DCBL, when it was their own negligence and incapability to follow up on my appeal when I originally sent it. I can see from online forums this is not the first time they have ignored appeals and then chased up with debt recovery companies which is a direct violation of their own appeals process.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6524609/smart-parking-major-keying-errors-appeal-no-response-debt-recovery-plus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80511826/#Comment_80511826

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80511533/#Comment_80511533

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80719312/#Comment_80719312

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6514685/smart-parking-pcn-not-received-escalated-to-debt-recovery-within-a-month

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6506021/smart-parking-and-debt-recovery-plus

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80514282/#Comment_80514282

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6489447/smart-parking-ltd/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6489424/smart-parking-didnt-responded-for-appeal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6525173/smart-parking-penalty-error-and-now-debt-collector-letter

My question is now that I've got a court claim, what is the best way to go about this? I have the screenshot and plenty of emails as evidence that I did submit my appeal on time and have kept contact with them throughout however they fail to recognise their failings as a parking enforcement agency. 

Any help would be appreciated, thank you! 

Coupon-mad

I followed Smart Parkings appeals process and sent an appeal to them on 11/10/2021 via the website (please see attached image for evidence)

That image isn't from Smart's website. That's DR Plus 'contact us'.

Did your appeal admit who was driving?

Show us the Claim Form, covering the same 4 things you see covered in all other DCB Legal claim threads kicking about here.

hodlerjay

As far as I remember, at that time this was the only way to appeal to Smart Parking. There would be a reason I'd log the appeal with DRP but I can't remember exactly! I can't even remember what my specific appeal was this was over 4 years ago

Gr1pr

You cannot appeal to debt collectors,  in your case there was Smart Parking followed by POPLA , nothing else 

A complaint to the management company or landlord or landowner or business would have been a good idea 

We will have to assume that the driver was not revealed at the time, due to no recollection by the defendant 

Lets see a redacted picture of the claim form,  after hiding your name and address,  hiding the claim reference number,  and the VRM details in the POC,  and also hiding the password on the lower right hand side too

Leave the dates showing 

Coupon-mad

And literally just copy a Smart Parking defence this past week that includes the POFA point and the word untruth.

Search the forum. No need to write it from scratch. I feel like starting a 'Smart Parking group thread' as these claims are coming along like buses! All the same.

hodlerjay

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr Please see attached

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad said:

And literally just copy a Smart Parking defence this past week that includes the POFA point and the word untruth.

Search the forum. No need yo write it from scratch. I feel like starting a 'Smart Parking group thread' as these claims are coming along like buses! All the same.

OK,  so do as coupon mad stated in her reply above 

Start by logging into MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online first,  then draft your paragraphs 2 & 3 in the defence template 

hodlerjay

Hi everyone, 

I've submitted my AOC today and will now be drafting my defence. I have no clue where to start and would appreciate some guidance please!

Thank you for your help so far. Much appreciated

Gr1pr

Its AOS

Study the following thread, plus the advice and guidance in it , and the links,  all similar cases 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/help-received-dcb-legal-claim-missed-defense-deadline#latest

Coupon-mad

As explained:

"iterally just copy a Smart Parking defence this past week that includes the POFA point and the word untruth.

Search the forum. No need to write it from scratch. I feel like starting a 'Smart Parking group thread' as these claims are coming along like buses! All the same."

You can find several on the forum in 5 minutes flat. There are lots of examples of DCB Legal misleading the court and keepers about POFA liability in non-POFA cases.

All Smart Parking claims this year include this misleading action in the claim particulars e.g.

TimBisley 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81594423/#Comment_81594423

basilpeach
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625981/defence-against-dcb-legal-for-smart-parking/p1

helpiamuseless66
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625722/smart-parking-dcbl/p1

kevmac25
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622149/#Comment_81622149

Some or all of the above have the extra paragraph about the signatory misleading the court about POFA.

You need to add that in your case too, making your defence 11 paragraphs or more. If it doesn't fit into MCOL just remove the LAST paragraph of the template defence.

hodlerjay

Hi @Gr1pr @Coupon-mad

Please see my draft defence template below. I've added the POFA 2012 so it is 11 paragraphs long, main thing I needed to know was if my paragraph 3 was good enough or do I need to elaborate on it more. Thanks in advance!

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. The Defendant believes the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

3. Due to this alleged breach taking place over 4 years and 5 months ago, the Claimant cannot recall if they were driving the vehicle at the time.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, 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 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

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.