Defence against DCB Legal for Smart Parking

Gr1pr

You do realise that only those actual paragraphs are copied and pasted into MCOL,  into the defence box  ?

Personally I would renumber it,  with no sub sections, if it is approved for submission 

Nothing above paragraph 1 is included at all when you copy and paste it , certainly not that header 

So assuming that your additional paragraphs are ready to go, no changes,  does it fit into the 122 lines allowed   ?

I suspect that it's too big to fit

Once approved,  you dont "send" it , you copy, paste,  check it fits with no errors,  save , submit 

You are not sending anything at all, no email,  no paperwork either 

basilpeach

Yes I do realise that.
I have written the POC, as I have seen on many other threads, when you and other helpers are commenting, you will often ask for what the POC are when helping people to formulate their defence. I have written those on to give you context to my defence. 

Ok thank you, I will renumber it for simplicity. 

If you had to delete some to make it fit, which do you think is least important? 

basilpeach

Also, I'm not sure what heading/header you're referring to?

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad always states that the last template paragraph 10 can be removed if necessary 

I would think that the 2 case examples could also be trimmed

Coupon-mad

basilpeach said:

Also, I'm not sure what heading/header you're referring to?

Remove all this:

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)

Those are the headings to remove. If they were meant to be in the new (July) Template Defence they would be there.

And some paragraphs are muddled. You've copied things from the older template defence that don't make sense in the new one, such as 'it is denied that (i) and (ii) are met' when you haven't mentioned a (i) and (ii) anywhere that I saw. It's a bit 'cut & shut' right now and doesn't really flow.

basilpeach

I've made edits, I think this all makes sense now. It fits in the 120 lines, too. Can you let me know what you think before I submit via MCOL?

Thanks all @Coupon-mad

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 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.

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, 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 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.

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. 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/negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite many 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. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. This claim wastes court resources and reflects systemic abuse: parking cases now form a third of small claims. False fees drive bulk litigation that clogs HMCTS, with most defended cases ending in late discontinuance. Although costs don’t usually apply on the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg))

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do! The claim is doomed and they will discontinue anyway in early 2026.

But first please do the government's Public Consultation (if not yet done - thanks if so) as that deadline is Friday.

Then I strongly suggest this as well, which might start bearing fruit and seeing cases swiftly cancelled:

I encourage EVERY Smart Parking Defendant to report DCB Legal to:

- the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) for alleged systemic breach of their professional standards;

- the CSA (Credit Services Association) for alleged systemic breach of their standards for fair and not misleading debt recovery letters;

- the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) for alleged systemic breach of the Joint Code and therefore, the DMCC Act 2024;

All three complaints triggered by two things:

1. the 'misleading action' of using boilerplate POFA worded Particulars of Claim which (for ALL claims involving this client) blatantly lie to recipient Defendants about 'keeper liability' under a law that Smart Parking never used until this year. This misleading action has been repeated in tens of thousands of ancient, barrel scraping (2020/21 COVID pandemic / lockdown dated) Smart Parking court claims this year already

and

2. the misleading action of (if they still are...?) sending LBC demands on DCB Legal headed notepaper which carries the blue strap-line "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!" which is vexatious and wholly unreasonable for this law firm to use  (DCB Legal are not bailiffs). That appalling fly on the wall TV show features DCB Ltd not DCB Legal and only cases at a stage after obtaining judgment and HCEO writ. These Limited companies are two different legal entities and the LBC was sent at PRE action stage when there was no possibility of them - or any firm in DCB 'Group' - removing goods.

IMHO: These two points must be investigated as a possible breach of standards for a solicitor, surely?