Smart Parking DCBL

helpiamuseless66

Hi all 
received today I have never engaged with the issuer of pcn or dcb legal but this has popped in my letterbox so I have tried MCOL site to register that I have received notice but no sign of claim on there am I missing something 
some general guidance please as I really do not wish to engage in a war of attrition with DCBL but I am a bit stubborn with bottom feeders.
I believe the ticket was issued to my son as the address is his old gym.
Alny input appreciated C

Gr1pr

DCBL are not involved here, just Smart Parking and DCB LEGAL,  for Unauthorised Parking 

Issue date was 20th August so login to your government gateway account   ( if you are the defendant   ) and use the claim reference number and password to complete the AOS online on MCOL,  ideally today 

I assume that you are not the driver on that incident date,  so add but not the driver to the end of paragraph 2 in the defence template by coupon mad 

Study the recent Smart Parking cases on here in the last few weeks to get your paragraph 3 draft 

helpiamuseless66

Have logged into MCOL online and AOS initiated 28 day will be contesting box.
I will review the smart parking info and then upload defence as suggested thk u 

Gr1pr

Post your draft paragraphs 2 & 3 below for checking,  before submitting your final defence on MCOL 

helpiamuseless66

Ok I have spent some time reading and pasting is this what is required or does the second part have to be more Personal, just to provide some context my son was using the gym parking 4/5 times a week and recalls being told that the registration machine for the car park had an issue on the day in question allegedly and this was confirmed by a PT impossible to get the logs of the parking listings from PureGym!

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 considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than confirming that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.

E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. KODP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held:

'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

Let me know

Gr1pr

3 is wrong, I mentioned earlier that the alleged breach was in the POC,  so you cannot rely on Chan and Akande 

Le_Kirk

The person who is named on the N1SDT form has to complete the AoS and the defence; if it is not you, you cannot do it, although you can, of course, help your son.

helpiamuseless66

Hi chaps so just to be clear I am named as the legal keeper and not having a law degree May I ask what I should replace the 3 bit with as it’s not the clearest thread I have ever searched help would be great couple of gentle pointers as opposed to it’s wrong I am just looking for some gentle pointers thank you 

Gr1pr

I don't have a law degree either ( and this is a parking charge forum,  not a legal forum   )

Replace your incorrect paragraph 3 with one from a similar recent Smart Parking case, adapt it to suit your own details 

Presumably you are the defendant as well as the Registered Keeper 

The original NTK PCN letter would definitely have not been compliant with POFA,  so as keeper and defendant you have no liability in law,  nothing to do with the circumstances,  just a point of law

helpiamuseless66

2. I Was Not the Driver

I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Smart Parking has failed to provide evidence that I was the driver, nor have they followed the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to establish keeper liability. Since no such transfer of liability has been legally established, I cannot be held liable for this charge as the registered keeper.

Would this be ok

Coupon-mad

I don't have a law degree either. But I have written parking case defences for almost a decade.

Your para 3 will be about what you told us, so this will do, then add the para 4 I have written too, then re-number the whole template so it has 11 paragraphs:


3.  With regards to the POC it is denied that the vehicle was 'unauthorised'. The Defendant's son was at all material times authorised to park when attending his local gym as a member. The car park was used properly and there was no contravention. There was an obligation for members to input their VRM on each visit but the Claimant's keypad system was unreliable and often not working properly. The Claimant's own records of this car will show that it was always authorised 4 or 5 times a week. There was at least one occasion when the driver recalls being told that the keypad kiosk had a technical issue. This was confirmed by a Personal Trainer on site. It has proved impossible to get the logs of the parking listings from that day from PureGym, therefore the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, 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 Defendant was not driving and, in fact, 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.

-------------------------------------------.

And please please please do this on or before 5th September (end of next week): the government's Public Consultation.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and detailed, we get that.

But no other knowledge is needed: you - as a harassed and angry Defendant who never wanted court and presumably received umpteen £170 threatograms from DR Plus over the years - can call out a scam industry with little preparation needed and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread to focus on certain questions that are important, such as banning the added £70 that the DRA and PPC share when duped people pay.

Meaning that Smart get more than face value for a PCN they've sat on for 3 years. This cannot be right! Should not be legal. Then they make consumers shoulder the lot including the VAT element of the commission they pay DCB, which debtors cannot be required to pay (ut's a breach of HMRC rules).

The whole DRA fee thing is a scam.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added so please a take time to do this survey, just as I took time to write you a bespoke defence. Motorists are in this together.