Another Smart Parking Court Case - Is it OK to admit to being the driver in this case?

weby72

Firstly, thanks to all those who selflessly give their time to make this such a superb resource to fight these cowboys.

I'm posting here on behalf of my elderly father.

The full circumstances of the case are:

* He is 89 years old and has mobility issues (disabled Blue Badge holder). He walks with a stick and only slowly.

* He entered a car park which he believed to be free and open (it is at the side/back of a closed pub that was boarded up and there was no signage at the entrance to state otherwise)

[the reason for stopping there was that my mum, suffering from Alzheimers - diagnosed 3 years prior to the incident - who was a passenger, had had a 'funny turn' and he needed to stop to tend to her; the road around had double-yellow lines.
But I appreciate this is probably superfluous to a defence]

* Upon stopping his car, he noticed some signs so got out of his car, walked over to them, read the small writing (you are required to be close the sign to read it) and noted that the parking was restricted.

* He then walked back to his car and drove off.

* The letter outlining the 'charge' itself states the time between entering and leaving the car park was under 11 minutes - the time it took him to get out of his car, walk to the sign, read it, return to his car, drive away.

* At no point did he park, apart from to read the sign.

I know that the general advice is not to admit that you are the driver, but my instinct in this case is to explain the full background - and the fact that he was only there for 11 minutes.

He has not responded to previous demands from Smart Parking/their 'agents'.

He has already formally acknowledged back to the court that he wishes to defend the full amount of the claim.

weby72

To add, the reason stated in the Court paper is "Insufficient Paid Time"

He's pretty sure that there was no pay machine and, as the pub was shut, no option to pay anyway

(the pub has subsequently been converted into a Tesco Extra, with the car park totally remodelled)

Gr1pr

The explanations can wait for the Witness Statement due in several months time,  hence why it has that designation 

The contract was rejected by the driver,  who left promptly,  so no contract was entered into

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the date that the AOS was logged too

weby72

Gr1pr said:

The explanations can wait for the Witness Statement due in several months time,  hence why it has that designation 

The contract was rejected by the driver,  who left promptly,  so no contract was entered into

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the date that the AOS was logged too

Thanks

I'm in the office tomorrow so will scan it then

Car1980

No contract. 

Driver ID factor is different at court - the person on the form must defend and appear. The driver, if different, is expected to submit a witness statement and can choose to attend or not.

But, this is Smart Parking and presumably DCB Legal, so it'll be discontinued anyway.

weby72

Gr1pr said:

The explanations can wait for the Witness Statement due in several months time,  hence why it has that designation 

The contract was rejected by the driver,  who left promptly,  so no contract was entered into

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below and also post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Post the date that the AOS was logged too

Apologies for the delay - way too much on at work

Here's the redacted court form



https://i.ibb.co/hSFsGwr/Dad-Court.jpg

AOS was filed 26/08/25

Gr1pr

The password is unredacted 

Your fathers deadline date is 4pm on Monday 22nd September  ( issue date was 19th August  )

Smart Parking via DCB Legal 

The alleged breach reason was , Insufficient Paid Time 

Study the recent similar Smart Parking cases to draft your bespoke 11 or 12 paragraph defence based on the examples that are based on the template defence by coupon mad in announcements 

Car1980

I'd use something like this:



1. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of vehicle AB12 CDE and the driver on the day and time alleged.

2. The Defendant is 89 years old, has mobility issues and is a disabled Blue Badge holder. He walks with a stick, and only slowly.

3. Upon entering the land in his vehicle, the Defendant could see signage displayed. After leaving the car to read the terms, which were burdensome, he declined the contractual offer put forward by the Claimant, returned to his car and exited the land.

4. No contract exists or ever existed between the two parties. The contract was declined, and the Defendant left as soon as he was physically possible - exactly the course of action suggested by parking companies such as the Claimant. 

5. None of the four requirements for a contract to be formed (an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations) was fulfilled. As the Defendant immediately left after declining the offer, no consideration was exchanged as he did not hire the parking space.

6. Therefore it follows that no contractual breach could ever have taken place either.

7. The Claimant's trade association requires allowance for a 5 minute grace period for a person to enter the land, read any signage and decide to accept or decline any contract on offer. The Defendant took 11 minutes due his disability. He is legally afforded protection under the Equality Act 2010 from discrimination such as this "time penalty" under the Act.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 19/08/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/09/25

Coupon-mad

weby72 said:

To add, the reason stated in the Court paper is "Insufficient Paid Time"

He's pretty sure that there was no pay machine and, as the pub was shut, no option to pay anyway

(the pub has subsequently been converted into a Tesco Extra, with the car park totally remodelled)

You can add that as your Dad's para 3 and the fact that the driver and passenger were both disabled Blue Badge holders.

But DON'T do it with him admitting to driving because you want to add the same para 4 as seen in all Smart Parking defences.

There are around ten recent Smart ones linked on page 14 of the Public Consultation thread linked below:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

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

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 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.

weby72

How do I now file the defence?

Do I email? (If so, what is the email address?)

Or can I login and submit online?

I'd stupidly assumed there'd be instruction on the paperwork/website