Smart Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025 (2 PCNs)

qwertyoffice

Hi all,

I got one though for two separate PCNs at the same location, both on one court claim for £544.24





Is this paragraph 3 ok please for my defence? 

On both dates the PCN was received within 5 minutes of parking. By the time the defendant paid (approx 8 to 10 minutes after parking) the PCN had already been issued.
The car park where the PCNs were issued is very busy and often only has one ticket machine working and therefore can take some time to purchase the parking ticket.
It seems the parking officers who operate this car park purposely issue PCNs immediately without waiting enough time for patrons to purchase a ticket. 

qwertyoffice

Issue Date was 06/08 - AOS filed 26/08

Gr1pr

I assume that it's Smart Parking via DCB Legal   ?

Stick to the recent paragraph 3 wording in other recent cases involving that duo, and edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

Smart Parking,  DCB Legal court claim 2025 ( 2 PCNs  )

qwertyoffice

Yes it is Smart Parking via DCB legal.  I will change the thread title now and search the forum, thank you

qwertyoffice

Seached the forum, so this will be my para 3 now - please confirm?


Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations."

Gr1pr

Its definitely part of the defence,  but with Smart Parking cases there are one or two extra paragraph to add, as coupon mad has stated in numerous threads recently 

1505grandad

As above  -  especially the "untruth" sentence.

Coupon-mad

qwertyoffice said:

Hi all,

I got one though for two separate PCNs at the same location, both on one court claim for £544.24





Is this paragraph 3 ok please for my defence? 

On both dates the PCN was received within 5 minutes of parking. By the time the defendant paid (approx 8 to 10 minutes after parking) the PCN had already been issued.
The car park where the PCNs were issued is very busy and often only has one ticket machine working and therefore can take some time to purchase the parking ticket.
It seems the parking officers who operate this car park purposely issue PCNs immediately without waiting enough time for patrons to purchase a ticket. 

qwertyoffice said:

Issue Date was 06/08 - AOS filed 26/08

Just read other Smart defences. Copy the extra para so your defence ends up with 11 numbered paragraphs, not ten.

Read any: the gym thread and loads of others talk about DCB Legal lying about the POFA.

Search words include POFA signatory untruth.

What's the claim issue date?

When did you do the AOS?

And even though this is stressful: please FIRST do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to 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.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY. Just days to go.

qwertyoffice

Thanks all, so is this final version ok please? 




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 hirer and driver.


3. On both dates the PCN was received within 5 minutes of parking. By the time the defendant paid (approx 8 to 10 minutes after parking) the PCN had already been issued.
The car park where the PCNs were issued is very busy and often only has one ticket machine working and therefore can take some time to purchase the parking ticket.
It seems the parking officers who operate this car park purposely issue PCNs immediately without waiting enough time for patrons to purchase a ticket. 

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

5. 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.

6. 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).

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 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.

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 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.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

The defence is good... almost...

BUT YOU HAVE MISSED THE EXTRA POINT ON EVERY SMART DEFENCE THREAD, ABOUT THE SIGNATORY MISLEADING THE COURT.

There are lots of examples of DCB Legal misleading the court and keepers about POFA liability in non-POFA cases.

All Smart Parking claims this year include this misleading action in the claim particulars e.g.

TimBisley 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81594423/#Comment_81594423

basilpeach
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625981/defence-against-dcb-legal-for-smart-parking/p1

helpiamuseless66
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625722/smart-parking-dcbl/p1

kevmac25
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622149/#Comment_81622149

Some or all of the above have the extra paragraph about the signatory misleading the court about POFA.

You need to add that in your case too, making your defence 11 paragraphs or more. If it doesn't fit into MCOL just remove the LAST paragraph of the template defence.

qwertyoffice

Ok thank you for your help so far, so this is the one?

3. On both dates the PCN was received within 5 minutes of parking. By the time the defendant paid (approx 8 to 10 minutes after parking) the PCN had already been issued.
The car park where the PCNs were issued is very busy and often only has one ticket machine working and therefore can take some time to purchase the parking ticket.
It seems the parking officers who operate this car park purposely issue PCNs immediately without waiting enough time for patrons to purchase a ticket. 

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

5.  Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, 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 in remote ANPR cases where there is no evidence that the Defendant was 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.