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.

carcarcarcar

Evening Coupon-mad/Gr1pr,

Thank you for the previous advice/comments (it's greatly appreciated!).

Here is my draft.. 

(With a couple of queries please)

* Is it ok to say "some drivers in the family are gym members" when I was actually the only gym member in my household that was a member of this gym? 

* Is it ok to say "Whilst it is impossible to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable day four years ago" when I was the only person in my household that drove this particular car?

* I've kept your original template point 4 in (now Nr 5), not displaced it, I assume that's correct? 

THANK YOU!

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. 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.

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

Remove this:

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. 

and remove this:

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, 

carcarcarcar

Thank you; once I've removed those 2 bits, is it then ready to submit?