Advice on Claim Form - DCBLegal / Smart Parking

DMXYZX

Hello, I've recently received the claim form from CNBC. I followed all the previous advice, to summarise:

• Received the Letter Of Claim 15th July 2025
• Responded to them via Email as per the newbies thread on 9th Aug 2025, no response other than the automatic reply
• Received the claim form with issue date 18 Aug 2025
• Completed the AOS on MCOL on 23 Aug 2025

Particulars of claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Lower Parliament Street, Nottingham.
2. The dates of contravention are 10/07/2020
and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

I genuinely don't recall if I overstayed or not, I probably ignored any first letters from smart parking but can't really remember with how long ago it was, and not I've not heard anything about it recently until the LoC. I do see that I have 3 individual payments on my bank records on the claim date to Smart Parking totaling £10.20.

Here is the Paragraph 3 for my defence, would appreciate any advice/changes/additions:

3. The Defendant denies that any term was breached. The Defendant
has little recollection of the events given they occurred over
five years ago. Bank records show that on 10/07/2020, the
Defendant made three separate payments to the Claimant’s system
totaling £10.20, demonstrating an intention to comply with the
parking tariff. On 9 August 2025, the Defendant requested a 30-day
hold under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017, which the
Claimant ignored, issuing proceedings prematurely. Any alleged
breach is therefore denied and the claim is without merit.

I have copied the remaining paragraphs from the template defence, should I modify any of them or leave as-is?

I see conflicting advice over whether to use MCOL to submit the defence or send it via E-mail across some of the similar threads, what's the most up to date advice for this please?

I see the next step after this is the DQ, then meidation and I should just offer them either zero or a tenner. I assume they'll reject it regardless?

Thanks!

Gr1pr

That defendant non Pofa2012 stance is different to some of the other examples relying on no keeper liability and the lies in the pleaded POC, BUT it's your decision to go with what is best,  so if you use your version and not one like this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624953/n1sdt-received/p1

Then add and driver to the end of paragraph 2, leaving all the other paragraphs unchanged 

Perhaps add the lie about Pofa2012 into 3 as well  ?

I assume they are claiming for 3 pcns on one day  ? Or is it just the one  ?

The defence template thread in announcements tells you exactly what to do,  especially the 8 steps, but you copy and paste your final draft into MCOL and save and submit  ( no email,  no posting paperwork   )

I suggest that you wait for more replies before submitting your defence,  because you have 4 weeks before the deadline  and yes you do use MCOL because its convenient and safer,  not relying on the postal service or human beings, too many problems caused a rethink last month, MCOL only 

You do seem to understand the process,  so we'll done 

DMXYZX

Gr1pr said:

That defendant non Pofa2012 stance is different to some of the other examples relying on no keeper liability and the lies in the pleaded POC, BUT it's your decision to go with what is best,  so if you use your version and not one like this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624953/n1sdt-received/p1

Then add and driver to the end of paragraph 2, leaving all the other paragraphs unchanged 

Perhaps add the lie about Pofa2012 into 3 as well  ?

I assume they are claiming for 3 pcns on one day  ? Or is it just the one  ?

The defence template thread in announcements tells you exactly what to do,  especially the 8 steps, but you copy and paste your final draft into MCOL and save and submit  ( no email,  no posting paperwork   )

I suggest that you wait for more replies before submitting your defence,  because you have 4 weeks before the deadline  and yes you do use MCOL because its convenient and safer,  not relying on the postal service or human beings, too many problems caused a rethink last month, MCOL only 

You do seem to understand the process,  so we'll done 

It's just the one PCN. It looks like I probably kept extending the stay time throughout the day.

Thanks a lot! I'll await more replies before refining para 3, and have added `and driver` to the end of para 2.

Gr1pr

Personally,  I think I would use the alternative Pofa2012 criteria paragraph for 3, no keeper liability  , including exposing the lie , but add that full payment was made on the day and the defendant now has bank statement proof which will be submitted with the Witness Statement 

I would alter the end of 2 to say keeper but cannot recall who was driving,  or something similar , due to it being so long ago

I would lose the bottom of your paragraph 3 about the LoC etc, its not relevant,  stick to the better arguments , because a defence rebuts the POC 

On 9 August 2025, the Defendant requested a 30-day hold under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017, which the Claimant ignored, issuing proceedings prematurely.

You can expand on the various topics in your WS in several months time,  should it get that far 

Marcus12b

I have the exact same claim by smart parking against me on this same day insufficient paid time also. At lower parliment street as well how ironic.

DMXYZX

Gr1pr said:

Personally,  I think I would use the alternative Pofa2012 criteria paragraph for 3, no keeper liability  , including exposing the lie , but add that full payment was made on the day and the defendant now has bank statement proof which will be submitted with the Witness Statement 

I would alter the end of 2 to say keeper but cannot recall who was driving,  or something similar , due to it being so long ago

I would lose the bottom of your paragraph 3 about the LoC etc, its not relevant,  stick to the better arguments , because a defence rebuts the POC 

On 9 August 2025, the Defendant requested a 30-day hold under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017, which the Claimant ignored, issuing proceedings prematurely.

You can expand on the various topics in your WS in several months time,  should it get that far 

Something like this?

... The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper but cannot recall who 
was driving at the time.

3. The Claimant alleges a parking charge on 10/07/2020 but has not 
provided evidence that any Notice to Keeper was issued or 
delivered in compliance with POFA 2012. The Defendant made full 
payment of the parking tariff on that day, as evidenced by three 
separate payments totalling £10.20, which will be supported by 
bank statements submitted with the Witness Statement. Any claim 
for sums exceeding the unpaid parking charge is not recoverable, 
and the Claimant’s pleaded sum appears to include fees beyond what 
POFA allows. Accordingly, the claim is disputed and must be 
dismissed.

Gr1pr

Most of the linked paragraph 3 I gave you is missing.  I would adapt their paragraph 3 to suit  ( dates etc  ) and tack the full payment and proof etc at the end. I dont understand why you are not using it  ( cue groundhog day  )

All of paragraph 2 needs using, with your extras tacked on the end 

DMXYZX

Gr1pr said:

Most of the linked paragraph 3 I gave you is missing.  I would adapt their paragraph 3 to suit  ( dates etc  ) and tack the full payment and proof etc at the end. I dont understand why you are not using it  ( cue groundhog day  )

All of paragraph 2 needs using, with your extras tacked on the end

Sorry! Let's try again   - I don't recall if they sent an NTK within 14 days so I've reworded slightly.

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 but cannot recall who 
was driving at the time due to the passage of time.

3. The Claimant alleges a parking charge on 10/07/2020 but has not 
provided evidence that any Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued or 
delivered in compliance with POFA 2012. Under POFA 2012, a NTK is 
required to transfer liability to the registered keeper, yet no 
evidence has been provided that this requirement was met. 
Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently begun using 
POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices, so they cannot rely on POFA 
to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2020. The Claimant 
is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. 
As liability cannot transfer to the keeper without evidence, and 
no evidence has been provided regarding the driver, the Claimant 
has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be 
dismissed. Regarding paragraph 
3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has never fully 
utilised the provisions of POFA 2012 and has never been able to 
hold registered keepers liable under that statute. Accordingly, 
the Claimant’s solicitor, by signing a statement of truth which 
relies upon POFA in this claim, has misled the Court as to the 
applicable law. The Defendant made full payment of the parking 
tariff on that day, as evidenced by three separate payments 
totalling £10.20, which will be supported by bank statements 
submitted with the Witness Statement.

Gr1pr

DMXYZX said:

Gr1pr said:

Most of the linked paragraph 3 I gave you is missing.  I would adapt their paragraph 3 to suit  ( dates etc  ) and tack the full payment and proof etc at the end. I dont understand why you are not using it  ( cue groundhog day  )

All of paragraph 2 needs using, with your extras tacked on the end

Sorry! Let's try again   - I don't recall if they sent an NTK within 14 days so I've reworded slightly.

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 but cannot recall who 
was driving at the time due to the passage of time.

3.1 The Claimant alleges a parking charge on 10/07/2020 but has not 
provided evidence that any Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued or 
delivered in compliance with POFA 2012. Under POFA 2012, a NTK is 
required to transfer liability to the registered keeper, yet no 
evidence has been provided that this requirement was met. 
Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently begun using 
POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices, so they cannot rely on POFA 
to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2020. The Claimant 
is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. 
As liability cannot transfer to the keeper without evidence, and 
no evidence has been provided regarding the driver, the Claimant 
has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be 
dismissed.

3.2 Regarding paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim,
the Claimant has never fully utilised the provisions of POFA 2012
and has never been able to  hold registered keepers liable under that statute.
Accordingly, the Claimant’s solicitor, by signing a statement of truth which 
relies upon POFA in this claim, has misled the Court as to the applicable law.

3.3 The Defendant made full payment of the parking tariff on that day, as will be
evidenced and supported by bank statements to be submitted with the Witness Statement.

Its not just the 14 days timescale to invoke POFA2012 and keeper liability,  until this year they never invoked it,  regardless of timescales,  never, hence why it's mentioned above, the wording invalidated any Pofa2012 liability,  or lack of suitable wording,  probably never mentioned Pofa2012,  so it could have arrived on day 10 or day 50 and still not be compliant,  they never were, until 2025 , maybe they finally understood it after numerous failures over 13 years   !  It was an easy win at the time for any victim of Smart Parking,  up until this year. So had you sought help in 2020 then this wouldn't be happening now. One email would have killed it off, or a subsequent popla appeal 

I made a few changes that might help you , but instead of 3.1 , 3.2 etc , once you have a final draft you may wish to renumber after paragraph 2, to keep it simple 

Now wait for more feedback 

Coupon-mad

Remove the word 'fully'

the Claimant has never fully utilised the provisions of POFA 2012 

I am also certain there were better ones written in July which included the word 'untruth' which is why I keep suggesting that search.