Court Claim - Smart Parking Ltd - Insufficient Time Paid

frustrated_parker666

Hello all,

I stumbled upon this forum after receiving my court claim so wanted to thank you all for the amazing information, I was so worried in the beginning, Here is the details. 

I received a fine after parking at the Airport Pub back in 09/2020 (5 years ago!), I asked about parking when I entered that pub and they just said you can do it on the way out its camera operated. came to pay and the machine asks you to specify how much you stayed! what's the point of the camera if its not gonna tell me how long I stayed and how much I owe! I paid for like 2 hours and left, only to receive £170 fine saying you stayed like 7 minutes more than what was paid. I appealed it and got no response, so ignored all the letters and now I have a court claim. 

Please help me, I read few threads on here, did not find any that was insufficient time paid, not sure if that changes the defence somehow. I haven't AOS or made a MCOL just yet, can I still do MCOL even if the claim was paper only?

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL via your government gateway account and complete the AOS online first,  today 

Then construct your paragraph 3 and new 4 of the defence template in announcements near the top of the forum,  same as everyone else,  making 11 paragraphs ( not the default 10  ) in total when complete 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/help-received-dcb-legal-claim-missed-defense-deadline/p1

Your defence deadline is 4pm on 29th September 

Coupon-mad

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).

frustrated_parker666

I've submitted my AOS on the 3rd of Sep as you instructed, currently working on the defence, But I have a question, What is the timeline for this process? I want to go abroad for few weeks and don't want to miss any steps and meeting mentioned in the posts, are these meetings in person? I'm gonna have my laptop with me so can still do emails etc. will probably back back mid of October. what do you advise?

Thank you for your help

Gr1pr

Ensure that your defence is logged on MCOL by the 29th September,  the later the better 

Then keep your eye on your MCOL claim history weekly,  regarding them posting out the N180, but you will likely be back home by then

Check your email inbox and spam folders from next month for the telephone mediation stage and appointment 

There are no meetings in person,  not until the possible future hearing date next year 

Study the 8 steps in the defence template thread too

I believe that you will have returned before anything happens after the defence is filed 

frustrated_parker666

Hello, 
Apologies for not posting my defence earlier guys, I know the deadline is tomorrow 4pm, I'm going to post my 3rd paragraph below, something else caught my eye while reading the posts, about changing my address, I did move to my new address in 2022 so after 2 years of the PCN, and I suddenly started getting the letters to my new address after I forgot to pay for an airport drop when they started the new gateless online system. does that change my defence in any way? 

This is paragraph 3 I copied all the other points from the link you posted in your previous comment: 

The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant failed to pay sufficient parking charges on the material date. This is denied. The Defendant paid for two hours of parking, believing this was more than adequate to cover the duration of stay. The Claimant’s system, which records the vehicle registration upon entry via ANPR cameras, ought reasonably to inform users of the correct fee owed for the precise period recorded; it is entirely unreasonable to expect drivers to recall the exact duration and then penalise them for an alleged underpayment covering a mere seven minutes. The lack of clarity and functionality in the payment process is at the heart of this dispute. The Defendant further notes that the Claimant failed to respond to a direct appeal and email, depriving the Defendant of any reasonable opportunity to resolve this before escalation. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, on what contractual basis the sum is claimed, how the underpayment arose given the ANPR records, and evidence of fair process and adequate signage or instruction at the site. The sum claimed is wholly disproportionate, and the Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to disclose clear evidence of a genuine contravention.

does that sound alright? 

Thank you so much for helping

frustrated_parker666

@Coupon-mad, I am so sorry for missing this, first time I was online the Saturday after the first deadline and now I'm online again to find out I missed the extended deadline by 2 days! I hope the consultations already made do the trick!, apologies again.

Gr1pr

A private parking company can only access the dvla database once per incident,  within 6 months of the incident date 

So receiving paperwork to the correct address years later changes nothing 

frustrated_parker666

other than that, does the 3rd paragraph look ok? I remember the guide saying dont copy the entire defence here, shall I proceed with submitting the defence?

Coupon-mad

And you've read the Mazur thread too and added the extra wording? 

frustrated_parker666

Hi @Coupon-mad

I have copied the wording from the last entry of the defence from the post that @Gr1pr listed in his comments above, I tried looking for the Mazur thread but I couldn't find anything related to tickets etc. Can you share a link to this please? Edit: I have looked further and found this topic: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6593744/defence-and-ws-in-shight-of-court-day-after-uk-ppo-ticket/p4
was that what you meant? can you send me what part of the wording I need to include please? 
below is my para 3 and 4  please advise if the wording from Mazur is already included, I can modify it before submitting by 4pm. 

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.

3. The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant breached terms of parking on 01 Sep 2020. This is denied. The Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purported Parking Charge Notice (PCN), having changed address since that time and not recalling receipt of any valid notices or reminders. Given that the alleged event occurred over five years ago, the Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to recall who was driving and therefore denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, the contractual terms said to have been broken, the evidence relied upon, the identity of the driver, and full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they seek to transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, any alleged stay would either have been within the permitted period or subject to a reasonable extension, including grace periods required under the applicable Code of Practice. The Particulars of Claim are vague and inadequate, failing to disclose sufficient detail of the alleged contravention, and the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective, or inadequate at the time, such that no contract could have been properly formed.

4. 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 because 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.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 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. The claim represents systemic abuse of 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))'.