Smart Parking refused landowner's request - court papers received three years later

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

If it were me I would email DCB Legal and state:

• you were a patron of the church at an event, did not breach any contractual term of "unauthorised parking" and did not breach the clear signage stating "patrons of St Lukes Church only".

• the landowner instructed Smart Parking to cancel the tickets but they simply refused, in breach of their own contract with the landowner.

• 8 other patrons were mistakenly ticketed at the same event 

• you are intending to counterclaim for the sum of £100 for time spent working with the landowner in order to attempt to get their client to cancel the ticket as per the landowner's contract, and the landowner and other patrons will submit witness statements and attend the hearing in person

• that you are well aware that this is a historic mopping up exercise and that you know DCB Legal will simply discontinue

• that they have 7 days to withdraw the claim or else a counterclaim will be made AND it will be taken all the way to a hearing.

We saw someone try this the other week. They did actually counterclaim and DCB Legal refunded their £35 claim fee and slithered back under their rock.

Counterclaiming really messes with their business model. You have a lot of ammo in this case. The actual landowner and a group of church people turning up to a hearing as witnesses would frighten the Jebus out of them.

For this reason, above.

However a counterclaim must be properly pleaded with a legal basis.

You can find a few examples on the forum. Read claim/counterclaim examples, such as those shown in threads by:

@Nosy

@ellaro9 

@pinkelephant12 

@dxbcc 

You just do it in the 'counterclaim' box on MCOL after putting in the defence. Not sure if that box then lets you pay your fee for the CC online. Try it. If not, phone the CNBC fees number and pay your fee the next day. Might still be £35 for up to £300 (you can check online for this).

Smick100

My grounds for counterclaim are fairly opportunistic. 

Maybe I will just go for the standard defence and request costs.

Le_Kirk

Smick100 said:

Does the beneath seem appropriate in defence:

Defences are written in the third person, so "The Defendant" rather than "I"  Use you most important point(s) slotted into the template defence at paragraph #3.

Smick100

This is my paragraph 3:

3.The Defendant was using the car park as a volunteer at an event

hosted by the landowner, a parish church. Only one sign is visible

between entering the premises and where the Defendant parked. This

states that the grounds are for the use of patrons of the church.

As an invited volunteer, the Defendant considered themselves to be

so. The notification received by the Defendant gave a telephone

number. Upon phoning this number, the Defendant was told that

Smart Parking were unwilling to discuss the charge, only take

payment. The Defendant then contacted the event organiser who

liaised with the landowner. The landowner contacted Smart Parking

twice to advise that the Defendant had permission to park on the

premises. On both occasions, Smart Parking refused to rescind

their charge. Other volunteers at the same event who appealed the

charge via Smart Parking's processes had their appeals declined.

Since receiving the Claim Form the Defendant has attempted to

contact both Smart Parking and DCB Legal Ltd and has not received

any response. The Defendant's local MP, Steve Reed, has attempted

to intervene on the behalf of the Defendant, and has received a

response, but Smart Parking have refused to rescind the charge.


Thanks @Gr1pr - changed

Gr1pr

Never use an incorrect word like fine,  its definitely NOT a fine 

You wont find that word in ANY approved defences on here

Coupon-mad

You need the extra paragraph 4 seen in every Smart Parking claim thread. No specific thread link needed! There are literally hundreds here and nearly 40 of them (all Smart cases) are linked by me in one specific reply on this page:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-2025-now-lets-see-what-happens/p14

You could have just copied their paragraphs or alternatively, you could adapt the words from @Car1980 for para 3, then added the usual extra para 4 after this, then the rest of the template renumbered so it's 11 paragraphs:


3.  There was no breach any contractual term of "unauthorised parking". There was no breach of a relevant obligation either because the clear signage at the entrance offered parking for "patrons of St Lukes Church only". The Defendant's family were indeed genuine patrons of the church, at an event. The Defendant tried to resolve the dispute and the church instructed their agents (Smart Parking) to cancel the PCNs but they simply refused, in breach of their own contract with the landowner. At least 8 other patrons were unfairly ticketed at the same event, so these parking charges are indefensible and not supported by the landowner, nor by any legitimate interest.