DCB Legal £9,000 Smart Parking Claim – Need Help Fighting Back

Umkomaas

Thank you @A4BZ for the copy of your NoD . This really is a BIGGIE. The highest value discontinuance ever in the 3 years I have been recording the ongoing nonsense emanating from Runcorn. I can now count your result in the infamous DCBL Legal thread of shame. Very well done, and I look forward to having a copy of your next NoD! 😉👍

A4BZ

Hi all,

Further update.

The N9B Defence form and attached Defence for Claim No. (Removed by Forum Team) were submitted on 7 June 2026. The claim was defended in full.

The Defence largely mirrors the issues raised in the earlier/main claim, but amended for this second claim. It includes points on:

• insufficient Particulars of Claim;
• Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting;
• no admission as driver;
• strict proof of POFA Schedule 4 compliance;
• signage and contractual terms;
• landowner authority;
• inflated sums / added £70 per PCN;
• POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5);
• ParkingEye v Beavis;
• Consumer Rights Act 2015;
• Excel v Wilkinson;
• interest;
• and DCB / Smart Parking’s fragmented approach to proceedings.

The earlier/main claim, Claim No. M5KF2J8Z, has already been discontinued by Smart Parking / DCB. That claim concerned 53 alleged PCNs. This second claim, N5KF1F68, concerns a further 9 alleged PCNs at the same car park, same vehicle, same Claimant, same solicitors and same alleged parking scheme. The second claim starts only six days after the date range pleaded in the discontinued first claim, and all 9 PCNs in the second claim already existed before the first claim was issued.

Despite that, DCB Legal have now emailed from their bulk litigation address saying that, having reviewed the Defence, their client intends to proceed. They attached their N180 Directions Questionnaire and said they have filed it with the Court.

I have now emailed CNBC / Case Progression to update (Removed by Forum Team) current custodial address, as he has moved from HMP Wormwood Scrubs to HMP High Down. The email made clear that all correspondence, allocation paperwork, Directions Questionnaire paperwork, notices and orders must be sent directly to (Removed by Forum Team) at HMP (Removed by Forum Team), and not to (Removed by Forum Team) or the residential address. Authority / Power of Attorney was attached, but it was made clear that (Removed by Forum Team) assisting with correspondence does not change (Removed by Forum Team)'s address for service.

The position now is:

• N9B and Defence were filed on 7 June 2026.
• DCB have said Smart Parking intend to proceed with Claim No. (Removed by Forum Team).
• DCB have filed their N180.
• CNBC / Case Progression have now been notified of (Removed by Forum Team)'s updated custodial address at HMP High Down.
• We are waiting for the Court’s formal Notice of Proposed Allocation / Directions Questionnaire deadline.
• Once the Court sends the formal N180 paperwork or deadline, (Removed by Forum Team)'s N180 will be filed and served within time.

We are still fairly confident this second claim may be discontinued eventually, especially given the larger related claim was discontinued, but DCB / Smart Parking appear to be pressing on for now.

Any views on the next steps at N180 stage would be appreciated, particularly:

1. Whether there is any harm in preparing the N180 now but waiting for the Court’s formal deadline before sending it.
2. How best to word the N180 in relation to (Removed by Forum Team) being incarcerated and requiring any hearing to be by CVP / video link from prison.
3. Whether the Henderson / claim-splitting point should continue to be raised firmly as part of the procedural background, alongside the usual parking defence points.
4. Whether anything else should be sent to CNBC at this stage, beyond the address update and waiting for the Court’s allocation paperwork.

Thanks again to everyone who has helped so far. It is genuinely appreciated.

Car1980

Despite that, DCB Legal have now emailed from their bulk litigation address saying that, having reviewed the Defence, their client intends to proceed. They attached their N180 Directions Questionnaire and said they have filed it with the Court.

That's what they say every time. This really is a conveyor belt system. They won't have even glanced at your defence. It's literally just getting junior staff to feed spreadsheets into MCOL.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82063937#Comment_82063937

highly automated as i get emails at 3am in the morning

ChirpyChicken

• 1. Do the N180 if you use Gmail and schedule send for middle of next week
• 2. Put the new prison address on the n180 in the contact details section
• 3 Save the N180 then load it up to a PDF editing site and on the front page type out that new address needs to be noted, that he is currently in prison and needs CVP only (you can free type it with something like https://www.sejda.com/

A4BZ

They really are a ridiculously silly firm as well as the claimant. Honestly cannot comprehend this level of low IQ individuals considering the first monumental claim has already been discontinued.

I wondered whether it was more prudent to wait for the court to send the directions questionnaire to me (hopefully my partner) before filing it back, or do you feel it is better we just make headway on it?

I have emailed caseprogression cnbc email and CCd in DCB litigation re my partners new address and for them to file everything there.

Thanks all

ChirpyChicken

No just do what ive advised

It will not get sent to your partners address. Not are they stupidly slow they often dont even process these address updates .

Its only an administration form. Takes 5 mins to fill in and submit

Le_Kirk

Whilst the Forum Team did a good job by removing all the instances where you had shown claim numbers, they missed two, which you might like to redact. I know you want to do it to separate the two different claims from one another on here, maybe you could just name them Claim A and Claim B and give each some identifying factors.

A4BZ

Hi all,

Just a final update on this claim.

We eventually managed to arrange for my partner, who is currently in prison, to attend the Small Claims Mediation appointment by video link.

As discussed previously in this thread, his defence raised a number of issues including Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting, POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the additional sums claimed, and the fact that the earlier much larger claim relating to the same vehicle and location had already been discontinued.

The mediation went ahead on 24 September and the matter was resolved, with the Claimant agreeing to discontinue the entire claim and no order as to costs.

We have now received the attached N24 General Directions Order from the Civil National Business Centre. The Order confirms that, pursuant to CPR 38.3(5), the settlement agreement is to stand as the Notice of Discontinuance in place of the usual discontinuance form.

So this second claim is now formally concluded as well.

I just wanted to say a huge thank you to everyone who has helped us throughout both claims. The advice, explanations and guidance on here have been genuinely invaluable, particularly given the added difficulty of dealing with everything while my partner has been in prison.

Both claims are now finished, which is a massive relief.

Thank you again to everyone who took the time to help us.

Amy

DrLex

congratulations to you and your partner. May your successes continue post release.