Defence against DCB Legal for Smart Parking

basilpeach

Hi there!

Really loving the forum, have devoured the content since I recieved my 'new claim' from DCB legal. I sumbitted the AOL on MCOL. I'm just writing up my defence, and wondered if someone was available to review it for me before I send it?

Thanks so much!

PoC: 

Particulars of Claim 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/08/2020

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Overstayed free time

4. In the alternative, the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No:  

Between

SMART PARKING LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxx                  

 (Defendant)

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 a 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, as well as further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of the events, save as set out below, and admits that they were the registered keeper. 

3.  Referring to the POC, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/08/2020 as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred five years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver. This raises questions about whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA-compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

3.1  The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, which complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases, and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

i. In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed.

ii. In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed.

4. 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 and unfair terms/notices. Given the limited information available, this case appears no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5-10 are there copied directly from the template from Coupon Mad. Thanks in advance  

Coupon-mad

Yep that's good but you may have to remove para 10 to make it all fit.

ONLY put 'and not the driver' if that is true.

I think you've only missed the extra point in other Smart threads that the signatory of the POC has told an untruth and misled the court about the POFA. It's in the Smart thread about a gym that I replied on and write a defence for.

Gr1pr

Reproduced in the following MET thread I believe

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625624/dcb-legal-met-parking-claim-received#latest

Coupon-mad

And - before the end of next week - please please do the government's Public Consultation.

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

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/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 on that thread. I have 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.

1505grandad

"The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/08/2020 as alleged."

Does the above in para 3 need amending because posted PoC state?:-

"2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/08/2020"

Coupon-mad

Not seen that wording for almost a year from DCB Legal. Are you sure it says this exact sentence?

"2. The PCN(s) were issued on 04/08/2020"

basilpeach

@Coupon-mad
Thanks for the extra info. 

Would you swap this parahraph4.

4. 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 and unfair terms/notices. Given the limited information available, this case appears no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

for this one from the other thread?

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.

Sorry, the DCB wordining is "The dates of the contravention are 04/08/2020 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the claimant" 

Does this mean I should change my wording on paragraph 2/3 as @1505grand@1505grandad states

Thanks so much


I'll do the Public Consultation too  

Coupon-mad

 

Sorry, the DCB wording is "The dates of the contravention are 04/08/2020 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the claimant"

Does this mean I should change my wording on paragraph 2/3 as @1505grandadstates

Yes.

And you aren't meant to delete the usual para 4. It's clearly not an 'either/or' choice. Include both and obviously just renumber everything.

basilpeach

Thank you!!

And just to confirm: these are the POCS 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The dates of the contravention are 04/08/2020 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: Overstayed free time

so is it okay/makes sense to say 

"Referring to the POC, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/08/2020 as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering they occurred five years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver. This raises questions about whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA-compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations."

Thank you!

Gr1pr

That looks like a paragraph 3

As its Smart Parking,  insert the untruth paragraph as a new 4 and renumber the old 4 to 5 etc, so increase the number of paragraphs by renumbering once you have added in your new paragraphs 3 and 4

So to be clear,  you use paragraphs 1 & 2 , add your new ones at 3 and 4 , and add the rest of the template defence below them, then renumber to suit, probably making 11 paragraphs in total 

Capiche  ?

basilpeach

I think so  

Do we think this is ok with sub sections?

PoC: 

Particulars of Claim 

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The dates of the contravention are 04/08/2020 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: Overstayed free time

4. In the alternative, the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No:  

Between

SMART PARKING LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxx                  

 (Defendant)

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 a 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, as well as further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of the events, save as set out below, and admits that they were the registered keeper. 

3.  Referring to the POC, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 04/08/2020 as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred five years ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

3.1  The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, which complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule. Outside the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability’. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases, and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

i. In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that were a remedy, then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting ‘on behalf of’ the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA, but did not. Mr Smith’s appeal was allowed, and Excel’s claim was dismissed.

ii. In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan, sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C), held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. “My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion...” Mr Edward’s appeal succeeded, and the claim was dismissed.

4. 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. 

4.1. 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.

5.     The Defendant denies that (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (‘the Beavis case’), which is fully distinguished.

6.  DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is required to provide 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 has been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a ‘concealed pitfall or trap’, poor signage, and covert surveillance; thus, it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

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 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))’.

Thank you - I'll get this sent soon then onto the next step!