Letter from HM Courts (with N1SDT Form)

carcarcarcar

Hi All, 
Received letter from HM Courts & Tribunals service along with N1SDT claim form (with an 'issue date' of 19 Aug 2025). Prior to this, have received various letters over the years demanding payment/threatening further action etc. (Have never acknowledged a single one of them). 

Relates to parking in a car-park whilst attending the gym (and either forgot to register car registration plate within the tablet on that particular day and/or the tablet was not working on that particular occasion). Either way, I was a paying member of the gym, had use of the car-park during gym visits, and was in the gym during the time that the fine relates to. 

Total amount being claimed is now in excess of £300. The claimant is Smart Parking Ltd, and it's DCB Legal Ltd that's stated as the address for sending documents/payments to. 

Here is the POC details: 
Really appreciate advice on the best/most efficient and quickest way forward to get it shut down and out of my life! 

Thank you so much.  

Coupon-mad

The claim is doomed and they will discontinue anyway in early 2026. Just follow the 8 easy steps in the Template Defence thread. Copy another Smart Parking case defence like the ones last week/month with the extra bit about the signatory misleading the court.

Then - as soon as your defence is submitted - 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 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? I strongly suggest these 3 complaints are done because this COULD see a ream of cancelled claims if just one of those agencies starts investigating.

carcarcarcar

Hi Coupon-mad, 
I have never used a forum like this before, so it's all been completely new to me. Upon review/reflection, it seems like people like yourself give up their time and impart their knowledge/wisdom, out of pure benevolence (and to help 'put it' to some of the conversely disgusting companies that are operating out there.  

So, thank you!

I've submitted my AoS, and will now draft my defence and then post it in here for the forum's review before submitting. 

Best regards. 

Gr1pr

This similar recent case should help you 

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

With an issue date of 19th August,  your defence submission deadline on MCOL is 4pm on 22nd September,  a Monday 

Coupon-mad

In para 2 only admit to being the registered keeper.

Your para 3 will be about what you told us, so this will do, then add the para 4 I have written too, then re-number the whole template so it has 11 paragraphs:


3.  With regards to the POC it is denied that the vehicle was 'unauthorised'. Whilst it is impossible to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable day four years ago, some drivers in the family are gym members and would indisputably have been authorised to park. This car park would only have been used to access the gym and there would be no question of a parking contravention or being 'unauthorised'. There was an obligation for members to input their VRM on each visit but the Claimant's keypad system was unreliable and often not working properly. The Claimant's own records of this car will show that it was authorised by a gym patron driver several times a week in 2021. Not that these POC specify what the Claimant means by 'unauthorised' but It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for a likely failure or (a regular occurrence) a signal drop-out of the keypad system: a mere technical issue not caused by a driver. To avoid relying on a keypad on every single visit - which exposes gym patrons to unfair charges when the system fails, or if they make a typo one day - the no-cost remedy would have been for a professional parking firm to electronically 'whitelist' gym members' cars for the duration of their membership.

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 Defendant does not know who was driving this car on a random day four years ago and notwithstanding that 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.