SMART PARKING, DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Gr1pr

If you cannot recall the event,  then you genuinely cannot state who was driving,  so paragraph 2 ends in keeper,  same as in the defence template,  leaving the question of who was driving unanswered 

Paragraph 3 rebuts the actual breach identified in the POC, same as in dozens of other recent similar cases,  so read a few of them, perhaps read a dozen 

The claim wont get thrown out 

But it's more likely to be discontinued just before the hearing fee deadline date where they must pay or lose, so study the process as experience by almost 700 in the discontinuations thread by Umkomaas 

You will DEFINITELY need someone checking your post weekly 

When you fill in the N180 in a couple of months time,  you need to inform them of the periods you are unavailable,  ensuring that your local court delay until you are back home 

webbyk

Gr1pr said:

If you cannot recall the event,  then you genuinely cannot state who was driving,  so paragraph 2 ends in keeper,  same as in the defence template,  leaving the question of who was driving unanswered 

Paragraph 3 rebuts the actual breach identified in the POC, same as in dozens of other recent similar cases,  so read a few of them, perhaps read a dozen 

The claim wont get thrown out 

But it's more likely to be discontinued just before the hearing fee deadline date where they must pay or lose, so study the process as experience by almost 700 in the discontinuations thread by Umkomaas 

You will DEFINITELY need someone checking your post weekly 

When you fill in the N180 in a couple of months time,  you need to inform them of the periods you are unavailable,  ensuring that your local court delay until you are back home 

Could you please let me know if you'd add/remove anything from my defence for paragraphs 2 and 3? I'll get it sent off as soon as possible to start the process.

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 limited recollection of events that occurred approximately five years ago, save as set out below, and admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

3. Given the significant passage of time, the Defendant does not recall being the driver at the stated location and therefore cannot confirm whether adequate signage was present to indicate any limited period of free parking, nor recall how busy the car park was at the time of entry or exit, which may have contributed to any alleged overstay.

At the material time, the Defendant was serving in the military and did not have a fixed address. The Defendant did not receive any correspondence until October 2025, which appeared to be the first notification of the alleged debt. The Defendant initially believed the correspondence to be a hoax, as they no longer owned the vehicle and the claim related to an incident from 2020.

Gr1pr

Study this recent case and decide if your adapted paragraphs need adapting, or plagiarise and use theirs

Your paragraph 2 should be one concise paragraph,  not spread over 2 paragraphs

Ditto with paragraph 3

There should also be the untruth paragraph and possibly a paragraph rebutting the numbered POC,  if its Smart Parking,  and please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SMART PARKING,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

webbyk

Gr1pr said:

Study this recent case and decide if your adapted paragraphs need adapting, or plagiarise and use theirs

Your paragraph 2 should be one concise paragraph,  not soread over 2 paragraphs

Ditto with paragraph 3

There should also be the untruth paragraph and possibly a paragraph rebutting the numbered POC,  if its Smart Parking,  and please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SMART PARKING,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Which recent case? The one you posted a link to previously?
"There should also be the untruth paragraph and possibly a paragraph rebutting the numbered POC"
Is this not already referenced in the 11 paragraphs that i will send with my amended ones?

Coupon-mad

webbyk said:

Gr1pr said:

Study this recent case and decide if your adapted paragraphs need adapting, or plagiarise and use theirs

Your paragraph 2 should be one concise paragraph,  not soread over 2 paragraphs

Ditto with paragraph 3

There should also be the untruth paragraph and possibly a paragraph rebutting the numbered POC,  if its Smart Parking,  and please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SMART PARKING,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Which recent case? The one you posted a link to previously?
"There should also be the untruth paragraph and possibly a paragraph rebutting the numbered POC"
Is this not already referenced in the 11 paragraphs that i will send with my amended ones?

I don't why you don't just do this:

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81731580#Comment_81731580

There are hundreds of Smart Parking defences here. I literally post this every day. Copy one.