Court Claim - Smart Parking Ltd - Insufficient Time Paid

Coupon-mad

There's a Bay Sentry thread with the new wording.

frustrated_parker666

Morning @Coupon-mad
I found that article about changing the paragraph 9 and 10 it, in I just took points 9 and 10 from your message in the Bay Sentry thread, although it had 11 and 12 as well, am I meant to copy those in as well and renumber?
the submission is today by 4pm

currently my defence looks like this: 

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 recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

10. That is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in private parking cases, where some of these 'debt recovery' law firms are known to advertise that they 'front' court fees to fuel bulk litigation for commercial profit only when a sum is recovered. If this is the model used here - and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary - paying £ hundreds of thousands in court fees per annum and maintaining boilerplate parking claims with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement in the cases litigated looks to be contrary to public policy, as well as in breach of DVLA KADOE rules where the parking operator must be the data controller throughout. The arrangement would be unenforceable as a result. In Tactus Holdings Limited (in admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/133.html), the High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller  (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/295.html)[2022] EWCA Civ 295 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/295.html)

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))'.

frustrated_parker666

I just tried pasting the defence into MCOL and it can only fit until midway point 10, I need to reduce some text

Coupon-mad

Remove paras 1 and 10.

And remove this unnecessary acronym:

" (PCN), "

frustrated_parker666

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr
so this would make it 9 paragraphs in total, all fits in the MCOL with 20 lines remaining, does look good?

1.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.

2. 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, 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.

3. 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.

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.

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 recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

9. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Two things:

Add the extra words shown to this para you already had:

The Defendant has little recollection of events and denies all allegations, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

And I believe you appealed and received no reply? I think you should add that fact and be more definite that the driver paid, not that they 'would have' been covered by a grace period.