SMART PARKING, DCB LEGAL court claim

bmx421

Hi there, long story short I stayed at a hotel over 3 years ago. I got a parking ticket for the hotel. Tried to complain to the hotel but they were useless and didn't resolve anything. I ignored the debt collectors letters, then silence. Now I've started getting DCBL letters and now a LOC. I don't have any record of the hotel booking anymore. I have read the newbies thread but understand once it gets to this stage it's best to start a thread as advice can be rather bespoke. Can anyone please offer any advice on next steps?

Here is my latest letter. 

Duke1999

It may be worth contacting the hotel and asking for confirmation of your booking on that day. I would also complain to the hotel and email their management team to see if they can still cancel it.
There is a response to the LOC in the newbies thread.

bmx421

thanks @Duke1999. unfortunately the hotel is long gone so not much use there. 

i emailed DCBlegal the standard LOC response. i have now received this reply along with an attachment picture of the vehicle at the time entering and leaving. 



i found this sentence interesting "The signs on site would have clearly outlined the terms and conditions of the site."  this makes me wander if they have pictures of this or not. 

any advice on next steps would be much appreciated

Gr1pr

Wait for the inevitable N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL to arrive in the post 

Coupon-mad

DCB Legal have nothing. Await the claim, which is what you want. It's the easy end game!

patient_dream

I have to laugh withe these DCBL letters.  YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED, YOU DO NOT OWE £170 .... IT'S RUBBISH

And they refer to court sanctions being imposed on you, just nasty little threats.   It is the courts who should sanction this bunch given their timewasting antics and discontinue poor record

You will note they say the fake amount includes debt collector costs being £70.   If you get a court claim you will find that they claim the £70 is for damages therefore misleading you and the court ... Judges do not like to be misled and can dismiss the case and award you costs.
No doubt DCBL will end up with their normal discontinue letter but not until next year, so play the game with DCBL and wait ..... DO NOT PAY A FAKE AMOUNT

bmx421

thanks guys will await the court pack 

bmx421

Hi all, to update.

I received the court pack. I sent back a defence which was highly rated from another member while changing slightly details for mine.

Defence

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. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied.
The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the
Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied.
The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence
of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies
the claim in its entirety. Any stay at

(***********) was either within paid time or covered by a
reasonable extension or applicable exemption, including mandatory
grace periods under the relevant Code of Practice. Given the
passage of more than 3 years and the lack of detail in the
inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the
Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time
may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is
grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount
to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.
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.
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))'.

bmx421

I've now recieved a n180 directions questionaire which i have filled out with the help of the answers in the newbies section and sent that off to the court + dcb legal.

Does anyone have any other advice on other things to consider at this stage?

Gr1pr

Just keep following the 8 steps

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872374#Comment_81872374

AND read the IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN (red capitals heading) section of you know which other Announcement thread…see my signature.

😀