Smart Parking via DCB Legal 2025

SeaCarrots

Hi all,

I’m looking for some advice regarding a recent claim from DCB Legal which has now led to a court letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service (Civil National Business Centre, Northampton).

The background:

• The claim relates to a private parking charge from 18/07/2021 for overstaying in a free car park (managed by Smart Parking Ltd).
• I originally ignored the earlier letters, and for years I heard nothing further.
• About a month ago, I began receiving letters from DCB Legal, which I also ignored, thinking it might go away as the earlier ones did.
• However, I received an official court letter dated 18th August 2025.

I am worried about what to do next. I accept that I did overstay at the time (though I can’t recall the exact details now), but I’m concerned about the potential consequences, especially as I am planning to apply for a mortgage next year and do not want anything affecting my credit record.

The claim details are as follows:

• Amount claimed: £228.44
• Court fee: £35
• Legal representative’s costs: £50

Based off of some other posts I have applied for the Acknowledgement of Service extension.

This should give me till the 20th September to work it out. 

My questions are:

• Should I try to fight this, or would it be better to pay/settle at this stage?
• Is it worth contacting DCB Legal to try to negotiate a lower settlement figure?
• What are the immediate steps I need to take to protect myself from a CCJ?
• Do I even have a leg to stand on? It’s not like I have any evidence from that date anymore. 
• What sort of information could I even use as a defence? 
• What is the actual process that now follows. 

I understand I have been slow to follow up with this once I got the Acknowledgement of Service, it gave me some breathing room in which I took but now the panic is setting in again. Any guidance on the next steps or what I need to do for statement? 

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Deadline is 4pm on Monday 22nd, not Saturday , never on a weekend 

Fight, copy a recent Smart Parking defence from here over the last few weeks,  adapt as required 

No, no settlement,  maybe at mediation,  but not now

Once your defence is submitted on MCOL,  follow the process outlined in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Coupon-mad

You want to add the same paragraphs 3 & 4 as seen in all Smart Parking defences. Copy!

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

PLEASE DO IT! Thanks.

SeaCarrots

Here is my defence that I have adapated from this post: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6626291/dcb-legal-smart-parking-claim-2025/p3

Could you check it over for me please. I am concerned the background might be too long? 

1. The Claimant’s case lacks specificity

The Claimant’s sparse case fails to comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, as it does not state all facts necessary to formulate 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 Government’s Parking Code of Practice £100 maximum for a parking charge. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are a good reason for the court to intervene. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this defence if further particulars are supplied. The court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

2. Denial of liability

The Defendant denies liability for the sum claimed, or at all. Any interest should be disallowed because the significant delay in bringing proceedings lies entirely with the Claimant. This delay makes retrieving material evidence difficult and is prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, which may give rise to further costs under CPR 46.5.

3. Background

The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant breached terms of parking on 18 July 2021. The Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances of that day, given that the alleged event was over four years ago and the Defendant cannot now recall who was driving the vehicle. The Defendant denies liability in any capacity.

The Defendant recalls receiving letters from the Claimant in 2021, which ceased after a short time, and no further correspondence was received until sudden debt collection letters from DCB Legal in mid-2025. This significant delay is prejudicial, making it unreasonable to expect the Defendant to recall specific details or to gather contemporaneous evidence.

Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof of:

• the alleged breach;
• the contractual terms purportedly relied upon;
• contemporaneous evidence of signage and its prominence;
• the identity of the driver; and
• full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) if the Claimant seeks to transfer liability to the keeper.

4. No Keeper Liability under POFA

Research confirms that Smart Parking Ltd does not use fully compliant POFA wording and has never created keeper liability. This is highly relevant because the Claimant’s legal representative has pleaded a cause of action relying on POFA. The Claimant is therefore misleading the court by suggesting that the registered keeper can be pursued, despite knowing that Smart Parking never invokes POFA.

5. No valid contract / unfair terms

It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but to form a contract, there must be offer, acceptance and consideration, which are absent here. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s62 and s71) requires a fairness test and mandates that consumer notices (such as parking signs) must be transparent and prominent. Smart Parking’s signage has been widely criticised for being unclear and incapable of forming a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs of signage and maps of site coverage.

6. Lack of standing to sue

DVLA data is only released on the basis of landowner authority. The Claimant, as an agent, is put to strict proof of their legal standing and authority to issue PCNs and to litigate in their own name. This requires disclosure of the landowner contract, its dates, scope, boundaries, and all schedules.

7. The penalty rule and inadequate notice

For a PCN to be enforceable, there must be:

1. a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss, and
2. adequate notice of the terms.

Neither has been demonstrated. The PCN is a penalty arising from concealed pitfalls, poor signage, and a lack of transparency, distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

8. Abuse of process and false add-ons

Attention is drawn to ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (upheld by the Court of Appeal), which found that inflating a parking charge with added admin costs is disproportionate and penal. Despite this, the Claimant has inflated the alleged £100 PCN to £228.44, then added a £35 court fee and £50 legal costs. This is abusive and should be struck out, or the false enhancements disallowed.

9. Government condemnation of false fees

The Government’s statutory Code of Practice (published February 2022 and under consultation again in 2025) condemned debt recovery add-ons as “extorting money from motorists”. Even if the Claimant had complied with POFA and the Code of Practice (they have not), the claim exceeds the maximum lawful sum.

10. Conclusion

This claim represents systemic abuse of the small claims process, driven by inflated sums and misleading reliance on legislation that does not apply to Smart Parking Ltd. The claim is wholly without merit, and the court is invited to strike it out. In the alternative, the court is invited to disallow all false enhancements and limit the claim (if proven) to the original £100 charge and the fixed court fee only.

Coupon-mad

That's a good version of the template defence with headings. This bit isn't right because it isn't abusive to claim court fees and interest:

"Despite this, the Claimant has inflated the alleged £100 PCN to £228.44, then added a £35 court fee and £50 legal costs."

It should read:

Despite this, the Claimant has inflated the alleged £100 PCN to £170.


I also suggest you lose your final paragraph and the heading 'Conclusion' and replace it with this new case:

10.  The claim form is defective for want of properly verified PoC. 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 (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance.

SeaCarrots

Thanks for the help @Coupon-mad. I have added your changes and have also added an extra small paragraph to section 8 and a new sentence to section 9. I will re-attach with the changes made if you have some time to proof it before I send it off. 

1. The Claimant’s case lacks specificity

The Claimant’s sparse case fails to comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, as it does not state all facts necessary to formulate 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 Government’s Parking Code of Practice £100 maximum for a parking charge. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are a good reason for the court to intervene. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this defence if further particulars are supplied. The court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

2. Denial of liability

The Defendant denies liability for the sum claimed, or at all. Any interest should be disallowed because the significant delay in bringing proceedings lies entirely with the Claimant. This delay makes retrieving material evidence difficult and is prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, which may give rise to further costs under CPR 46.5.

3. Background

The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant breached terms of parking on 18 July 2021. The Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances of that day, given that the alleged event was over four years ago and the Defendant cannot now recall who was driving the vehicle. The Defendant denies liability in any capacity.

The Defendant recalls receiving letters from the Claimant in 2021, which ceased after a short time, and no further correspondence was received until sudden debt collection letters from DCB Legal in mid-2025. This significant delay is prejudicial, making it unreasonable to expect the Defendant to recall specific details or to gather contemporaneous evidence.

Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof of:

• the alleged breach;
• the contractual terms purportedly relied upon;
• contemporaneous evidence of signage and its prominence;
• the identity of the driver; and
• full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) if the Claimant seeks to transfer liability to the keeper.

4. No Keeper Liability under POFA

Research confirms that Smart Parking Ltd does not use fully compliant POFA wording and has never created keeper liability. This is highly relevant because the Claimant’s legal representative has pleaded a cause of action relying on POFA. The Claimant is therefore misleading the court by suggesting that the registered keeper can be pursued, despite knowing that Smart Parking never invokes POFA.

5. No valid contract / unfair terms

It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but to form a contract, there must be offer, acceptance and consideration, which are absent here. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s62 and s71) requires a fairness test and mandates that consumer notices (such as parking signs) must be transparent and prominent. Smart Parking’s signage has been widely criticised for being unclear and incapable of forming a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs of signage and maps of site coverage.

6. Lack of standing to sue

DVLA data is only released on the basis of landowner authrity. The Claimant, as an agent, is put to strict proof of their legal standing and authority to issue PCNs and to litigate in their own name. This requires disclosure of the landowner contract, its dates, scope, boundaries, and all schedules.

7. The penalty rule and inadequate notice

For a PCN to be enforceable, there must be:

1. a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss, and
2. adequate notice of the terms.

Neither has been demonstrated. The PCN is a penalty arising from concealed pitfalls, poor signage, and a lack of transparency, distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

8. Abuse of process and false add-ons

Attention is drawn to ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (upheld by the Court of Appeal), which found that inflating a parking charge with added admin costs is disproportionate and penal. Despite this, the Claimant has inflated the alleged £100 PCN to £170.

This is abusive and should be struck out, or the false enhancements disallowed.

The Claimant then seeks to apply statutory interest to this already inflated figure, arriving at a pleaded sum of £228.44. Any interest calculation is misconceived because it is applied to a base sum that is itself unlawful and unrecoverable.

9. Government condemnation of false fees

The Government’s statutory Code of Practice (published February 2022 and under consultation again in 2025) condemned debt recovery add-ons as “extorting money from motorists”. The Claimant is therefore attempting to recover sums expressly banned by Government policy. Even if the Claimant had complied with POFA and the Code of Practice (they have not), the claim exceeds the maximum lawful sum.

10.  The claim form is defective for want of properly verified PoC. 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 (Sarah Ensall) does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal. Even if acting 'under supervision', the binding decision in Speechlys holds that unauthorised staff must not conduct litigation. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

Once submitted it would be great if you could find time to do the Public Consultation linked above. It's a bit of a slog but as the saying goes, evil prevails when good men (and women!) do nothing. Just days left.

SeaCarrots

Thanks for your help! I have just submitted public consultation questionnaire! It was a slog as you said but lets hope some change comes from it! 

Now that I have sent off the defence, what should I expect to happen next realistically? I know I will get a questionnaire but do they normally just give up once they see all of the law speak? 

Gr1pr

When you say "sent off" , do you actually mean submitted on MCOL   ?  ( big difference   ) we hope so

The 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements tell you the other 7 steps after step 1

They typically discontinue just before the hearing fee must be paid,  so in several months time,  not before because they can badger the defendant with dwindling offers,  so it's the long game,  a war of attrition,  the case rarely matters , it's their modus operandi,  M.O. !

Its bulk litigation,  so I doubt that they would spend more than 5 minutes on yours at any one time,  it's just an overloaded conveyer belt churning it out en masse

Its when money has to be paid out that they focus on the end game,  or chuck in the towel,  if they haven't intimidated the victim into paying

SeaCarrots

Yes, sorry, by "sent off" I meant submitted through MCOL. Thanks so much for the overview, it’s really helped ease my nerves about the process!