Smart Parking Defence Feedback please!

dunkedondonuts

Firstly thanks to everyone who has contributed to the resources here, the are invaluable.
I have used the defence template from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025 as is. This is what I am proposing for paragraph 3: 3. 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 as the Defendant was a customer. 3.1 The Defendent was unable to pay for parking due to malfunction of the payment devices. On enquiry, staff at an establishment on the land informed the Defendent that this was a regular occurance and advised that the facility could still be used. 3.2 The Defendant did attempt to appeal the PCN at the time but received no response. Is this sufficient? What do you think I should add/remove?

Gr1pr

dunkedondonuts said:

Firstly thanks to everyone who has contributed to the resources here, the are invaluable.
I have used the defence template from

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-in-2025  as is.

This is what I am proposing for paragraph 3:

 3. 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 as the Defendant was a customer.

 3.1 The Defendent was unable to pay for parking due to malfunction of the payment devices. On enquiry, staff at an establishment on the land informed the Defendent that this was a regular occurance and advised that the facility could still be used.

 3.2 The Defendant did attempt to appeal the PCN at the time but received no response.

 Is this sufficient? What do you think I should add/remove?

edited in order to separate everything 

For Smart Parking cases there are a couple more paragraphs to add,  including the untruth paragraph , I suggest that you study other recent Smart Parking DCB Legal cases 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/dcb-legal-smart-parking-claim-missed-defence-deadline-ccj/p2

1505grandad

Can you post a copy of the claim form redacting all the usual personal data including VRM, password, QR codes etc. but leave all dates showing.

Coupon-mad

Best not to admit to driving in Smart defences unless you already admitted that earlier as part of an appeal.

dunkedondonuts

1505grandad said:

Can you post a copy of the claim form redacting all the usual personal data including VRM, password, QR codes etc. but leave all dates showing.

Coupon-mad said:

Best not to admit to driving in Smart defences unless you already admitted that earlier as part of an appeal.

My only contact (other than SAR) was this:
I am writing in response to you letter headed "LETTER BEFORE CLAIM", referencing PCN number XXXXXX.
I dispute your claim outlined therein and deny any debt. I am seeking debt advice regarding this and require this case to be put on hold for not less than 30 days, as detailed in the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I have made a Subject Access Request to Smart Parking Ltd for data relevant to this issue.

If you decide to proceed with this issue I intend to use the communications I have received from CST Law Ltd and Smart Parking Ltd to demonstrate abuse of process and violation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Which part of my proposed defence do you consider to be an admission of being the driver?

Is this the extra paragraph to include for a Smart Parking Defence?

As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

Many thanks!

Gr1pr

Yes that is the extra paragraph regarding untruth,  so lets see your proposed paragraphs 2 , 3 , new 4 , then renumber the rest but we dont need to see them because they are not changing  ( the total number is usually 11 paragraphs instead of 10  )

dunkedondonuts

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. 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 as the Defendant was a customer.

3.1 The Defendent was unable to pay for parking due to malfunction of the payment devices. On enquiry, staff at an establishment on the land informed the Defendent that this was a regular occurance and advised that the facility could still be used.

3.2 The Defendant did attempt to appeal the PCN at the time but received no response.

4. As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle.

I will likely be updating P3 if @Coupon-Mad suggests so.

I see that one defence here adds to P2 "and has little to add other than confirming that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.". Is this worth including?

For those helping me with this, feel free to drop the name of any charity/organisation you consider worth supporting ❤️

Gr1pr

2 should probably have,  but cannot recollect who was driving 

3.1  and 3.2 should probably be combined into a single paragraph,  paragraph 4 , the untruth paragraph can be 5, then renumber to make 12 numbered paragraphs 

1505grandad

"3.1 The Defendent was unable to pay for parking due to malfunction of the payment devices. On enquiry, staff at an establishment on the land informed the Defendent that this was a regular occurance and advised that the facility could still be used."

Above seems to suggest the Defendant was the driver as no mention of any passenger/driver

Gr1pr

Gr1pr said:

2 should probably have,  but cannot recollect who was driving 

So, Perhaps change it to 

but cannot recollect who was driving but was an occupant of the vehicle on that date 

dunkedondonuts

Thanks. I have rolled 3.1 & 3.2 together into a new paragraph 4. P2 now ends with:
The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and an occupant of the vehicle on that date but cannot recollect who was driving.

Are we looking good now?