SMART PARKING, DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Coupon-mad

Should I email court stating unavailable dates again?

If you are certain that Order doesn't state a hearing date in the front page, you can restate unavailable dates right through to the late summer in your covering email with your WS and exhibits.

The WS by @JackR1 includes HHJ Moloney's transcript as well as Edward, Smith, Wilkinson which relate to your case (but you do not need Chan and Akande). You can adapt that one.

But Smart claims are always discontinued by DCB Legal, after a final attempt to dupe you into paying c£60.

Yes, prepare a WS. This will be the start of it (after introducing yourself in para one):

With the claim being from 2020 and me not ever living in the area or recalling visiting the car park in question I have no idea what signage would have been like or how I can start collecting evidence on this from so long ago. 

The term breached was overstayed free time but again it doesn't state the free time or how long I was actually over. 

webbyk

I've read through i few WS now over and over to try get my head around what applies to me and I've picked out numerous points and tried to build my WS ready to send in time. I didn't know wether to include about signage with a picture of beavis black and yellow sign in this case? Also should I put a statement about them not showing up for mediation?

webbyk

Witness statement of defendant

1. I am xxx of xxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

To the best of my knowledge I have no recollection of the event. With the claim being from 2020 and me not knowing the area or recalling visiting the car park in question I have no idea what signage would have been like or how I can start collecting evidence on this from so long ago. 

I was based over 35 minute drive away at a military base where other insured drivers who had access to the vehicle reg xxx may have used the vehicle in question while I was at work, on leave or deployed overseas. With there own comprehensive cover using 3rd party liability to drive other vehicles.

The term breached was overstayed free time but again it doesn't state the free time or how long I was actually over. There has been no proof of who was driving the car or what the overstay breach was. 

I have also never received any correspondence on parking charge until 2025 to which I initially believed it to be a scam being 5 years ago and in regards to a car I haven’t owned for 4 years.

1. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate I have also inserted highlighted links where available. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Defective Particulars of Claim

1. The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that “the driver of the vehicle with registration xxx parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage”. However, the Claimant provides no information on the specific terms said to have been breached, the conduct that allegedly broke those terms, or how any contract was formed. This absence of essential detail fails to justify the claim and has also made it difficult for me to respond to it effectively.

No Valid Contract Formed

1. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract term was breached. However, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and something of value given in return — which was not present here. Under section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 

Keeper Liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

1. I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number xxx and deny any liability.

  The Defendant has never been identified as the driver, nor has any other person. The Claimant has provided no evidence whatsoever that the Defendant was driving at the time of the alleged breach. Only the driver—as the person who could have potentially seen and accepted any terms on the signage—could possibly be the contracting party. The Claimant relies only on an assumption.

If the Claimant wishes to pursue the Defendant as the driver, the burden rests entirely on them to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was in fact driving. Mere speculation or assumption is not enough.

In April 2023, HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed. https://www.scribd.com/document/676990739/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward

If, instead, the Claimant seeks to pursue me as the keeper as the Claimant states in the POC  then they must meet the strict requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the keeper. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 )

Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to comply with POFA and cannot transfer liability to me as keeper. There is therefore no lawful basis for this claim against me.

The fact that parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability in case of non-compliance with POFA, has been tested on appeal in private parking cases including in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court (Exhibit 01), on appeal re-claim number C0DP9C4E, HHJ Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable without the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Excel's claim was dismissed.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

1. In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. ( Site faviconProtection of Freedoms Act 2012 )

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 

Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.” Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis  , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf

In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.https://www.scribd.com/document/889427762/G4QZ465V-Excel-v-Wilkinson-2

1. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the before mentioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conclusion

The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

The Claimant has neither identified the driver nor complied with the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to pursue the registered keeper. 

The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer
CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. 

The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly
enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable
for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims
allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1):
"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

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 10 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £24/hour.

• 10 hours research + preparation × £24/hour = £240.00

Total (if awarded): £240.00

Le_Kirk

You will, of course, sort out the paragraph numbering before submitting it! Witness statements are written in the first person so not "the defendant" but "I".

webbyk

Yes was just trying to get the content in to see if I needed anything in or out and will sort everything else out in the meantime.

1505grandad

"The term breached was overstayed free time but again it doesn't state the free time or how long (I) was actually over."

Should (that) be "the driver"? - in view you are defending as keeper only.

Coupon-mad

Remove all the out of date stuff at the end about the DLUHC; there is no ban (yet) on the double recovery of the letter costs.

This bit may or may not be correct but you haven't stated how exactly the NTK is non-compliant (if it is?):

Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to comply with POFA and cannot transfer liability to me as keeper. There is therefore no lawful basis for this claim against me.

webbyk

It's all paragraphed and layout sorted now it just doesn't copy over to the forum well. I've emailed the court trying to confirm dates but no response yet. Also no signs of claimants WS either. Going to get all sent off tomorrow as deadline is 27th hope it seems okay.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

I am xxx of xxx and I am the Defendant in this matter. The facts set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Background

Due to the passage of time, the alleged event dating back to xxx is not something I can recall. I have no recollection of visiting the location in question or of any parking event on that date.

At the time, I was based approximately 35 minutes away at a military base. The vehicle in question, registration xxx, was accessible to other insured drivers, and I am unable to confirm who was driving on the material date.
I did not receive any correspondence relating to this parking charge at the time of the alleged contravention.

I only became aware of this matter in xxx, approximately five years later, when letters were sent to a new address. Given the delay and the fact I no longer owned the vehicle, I initially believed this to be a scam.


Defective Particulars of Claim

The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions 16 paragraphs 3 and 7. The Claimant merely states that the driver “breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signs” without specifying:
The terms allegedly breached,
The duration of any alleged overstay, or
The applicable free parking period.
The absence of this essential information has made it difficult to understand and respond to the claim.
→ A copy of the Particulars of Claim is attached at Exhibit A.

No Evidence of Contract or Signage

The Claimant has provided no evidence of the signage in place at the material time, nor that any terms were clear, prominent, and capable of binding a driver.

In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be established that any contractual terms were properly brought to the attention of the driver, and therefore no contract can be said to have been formed.

Keeper Liability and POFA 2012

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but deny any liability for the claim.
The Claimant has not identified the driver. Liability can only attach to the driver unless the Claimant fully complies with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).
→ A link of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 is attached (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)

Failure to Comply with POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not received within the required 14-day period prescribed by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

In fact, I did not receive any correspondence relating to this matter until xxx, approximately five years after the alleged contravention dated xxx, and only after letters were sent to a new address.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the date of posting and delivery of any Notice to Keeper.

As a result of this failure, the Claimant has not complied with the mandatory conditions required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Accordingly, keeper liability does not arise in this case.

The Defendant has no recollection as to who was driving the vehicle on the material date, and the Claimant has provided no evidence to prove the Defendant was driving. In the absence of both driver identification and compliance with POFA 2012, this claim has no lawful basis.

Relevant Case Law

In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (Teesside Combined Court, 2023), it was confirmed that a registered keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver.
→ A link to transcript/extract is attached (https://www.scribd.com/document/676990739/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward)

Similarly, in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (Manchester County Court, appeal), the court confirmed that keeper liability cannot arise without compliance with POFA 2012.
→ A copy of transcript/extract is attached at Exhibit B.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

The Claimant seeks a sum greater than the original parking charge.
Under Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the maximum sum recoverable from a keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Driver.

The additional sums claimed (such as debt recovery or administrative fees) are not recoverable under POFA 2012 and have been disallowed in multiple court decisions.

The inclusion of such additional sums is an abuse of process and renders the claim exaggerated and unrecoverable.
→ A link to Excel v Wilkinson is attached (https://www.scribd.com/document/889427762/G4QZ465V-Excel-v-Wilkinson-2)

Conclusion
The Claimant has failed to:
Identify the driver,
Comply with the requirements of POFA 2012,
Provide sufficient detail in the Particulars of Claim, and
Demonstrate that any contract was formed.
Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be dismissed.

Costs
The Defendant seeks:
(a) Standard witness costs pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) Costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g), should the Court consider the Claimant’s conduct to meet that threshold.

Schedule of Loss
10 hours preparation x £24/hour = £240.00
This rate applies to time reasonably spent on preparation, administration, and research, as updated by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Total claimed (if awarded): £240.00

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed:
Name: xxx
Date: xxx

Exhibit A (POC)

Exhibit B (Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith)

Coupon-mad

All good … except the five year out of date short statement of truth! This is covered in the NEWBIES thread second post.

webbyk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81976562#Comment_81976562

This one? sorry my signals dreadful where I am at the moment and I'm struggling to load searches.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.