Smart Parking DCB Legal County Court Claim

HateSmartParking

Hello there,

I would really appreciate any help or guidance with my defence, especially regarding whether Smart Parking's NTK was POFA compliant.

I've received a County Court Claim from Smart Parking through DCB Legal Ltd for a parking PCN from over 4 years ago (£313.64).  (see image below)

My partner at the time advised me not to email or call Smart Parking and to ignore all DCBL debt collector letters.

I'm feeling pretty anxious now about potentially getting a CCJ, but I wasn't the driver, so I've decided to try to defend this claim rather than pay them if I still have enough time.

I followed the newbie guide and submitted my Acknowledgement of Service on 27/08/2025 via MCOL. 

I've also emailed the data protection officer at dpo@smartparking.com several times requesting all correspondence, evidence, and information about this parking charge, but they haven't replied at all. Does the lack of DPO response strengthen my position?

Thanks so much in advance for any advice.

H : )

Gr1pr

You can complain about the lack of the DPO response to the ICO, but it's probably not relevant at the moment 

You had to attach proof of ID, like a copy of the V5c log book and copies of 2 redacted utility bills 

They may well have replied by email and it went into your spam folder 

Smart Parking never complied with POFA 2012 until this year, so definitely not 4 years ago , so no keeper liability 

Issue date was 18th August,  AOS is done, so your deadline for submitting the defence on MCOL is 4pm on Monday 22nd September 

Use any recent approved Smart Parking defence,  typically 11 or 12 paragraphs,  adjust to suit your POC details,  10 minute job,  you want the non Pofa2012 compliance,  untruth on the POC etc, like in this thread and links

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6628627/dcb-legal#latest

You use the template defence adapted as above,  easy peasy once you have read a few similar Smart cases over the last 6 weeks 

Add but not the driver to the end of your draft paragraph 2

Follow the 8 steps 

You definitely wont get a CCJ if you follow our advice,  DO NOT PAY   !

HateSmartParking

Thank you so much @Gr1pr for your help 🙏

Ill prepare my defence  over the weekend 

Coupon-mad

HateSmartParking said:

Thank you so much @Gr1pr for your help 🙏

Ill prepare my defence  over the weekend 

You want to add the same para 4 as seen in all Smart Parking defences.

There are a dozen recent Smart ones linked on page 14 of the Public Consultation thread linked below:

FIGHTBACK ALERT: Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline. See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

HateSmartParking

Hi @Gr1pr &  @Coupon-mad 

Is this fine for the above claim?

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 admits that they were the registered keeper. The Defendant believes the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

3. Due to this alleged breach taking place over fifty months ago, the Claimant cannot recall if they were driving the vehicle at the time.

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

Coupon-mad

Yes very good. Easy, innit? Except you told us you weren't driving. If that is true you should be less vague and say so on para 2.

Do join us and get your revenge for this intimidating farce of a claim by then doing the Public Consultation in the next 10 days / by the deadline!

HateSmartParking

3. Due to this alleged breach taking place over fifty months ago, the Claimant cannot confirm who was driving the vehicle at the time.

HateSmartParking

Hey,  @Coupon-mad

I appreciate you getting back to me!

Did you mean paragraph 3? 

Or just  add the following to paragraph 2.

"Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver."

I will do the Public Consultation tonight 

Thank you 

H : )

Gr1pr

Remove your  paragraph 3 sentence and replace it with your not the driver version 

So its the little recollection sentence, or not the driver sentence,  but must be truthful,  especially if you were not the driver,  say so, why hide it   ?

The vague sentence is for anyone who could have been the driver,  but cannot remember 

HateSmartParking

Thank you so much for your help, @Gr1pr.  To clarify, I wasn’t the driver.

Would you say this is okay to submit now, or would it be better if I shared all my defense paragraphs for you to take a quick look at?  I really appreciate your help. (and  @the mad Coupon-man as well  ; )

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 admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle but denies being the driver. The Defendant further contends that the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on 13 July 2021, the date on which the Parking Charge was issued.

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.

Gr1pr

I would adapt 2 and incorporate some of 3, after the DENIES , or change it to KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE BUT NOT THE DRIVER ON ..... etc

Then lose 3, possibly adding something different instead, or lose your 3 and make your 4 above as paragraph 3