Threatened with CCJ after parking fine over 4 years ago. Need advice for next steps, please.

MrProsperous25

Hi

I received a letter two weeks ago saying that I will potentially be taken to court for parking fine, and potential CCJ. I have misplaced the letter but I have done the AoS on MCOL website. According to MCOL website:

Claim issued against me: 17/10/2025
Received in post: 22/10/2025
My AoS: 24/10/2025
They received AoS: 27/10/2025

Also, on MCOL: 

Claimant: Smart Parking Ltd
Claimant number: XXXXXXXX
Defendant: My Names
Amount: Claimed: £231.56
Court fee: £35
Solicitors costs: £50

Total amount: £316.56

On the MCOL website, kn the available options section, there is Response Forms section. Am I supposed to "Start Defence", where I will use the Template provided (many thanks)? Or, am I supposed to wait for another acknowledgement from the "claimant"?


Pleas advise, and thank you in advance. 

Gr1pr

Follow our advice and you wont receive a CCJ

Draft your proposed defence based on the template defence,  adapting paragraphs 2 & 3 and also add the untruth paragraph at paragraph 4 too ( you will renumber the rest as 5 to 11 , making 11 paragraphs not 10

Post your new paragraphs 2, 3 , 4, below for checking and critique 

Personally,  I would find a recent Smart Parking DCB Legal case with the 11 paragraphs and adapt the 2 to 4 as necessary,  only a few minor changes would be required,  10 minutes work

Only then do you use the start defence box,  copying and pasting your final draft into the defence box,  save, and submit

Job done 

MrProsperous25

Thank you for the swift reply and for the advice. 

I will look for a recent case as advised, and will post here for critique. The one thing though is that it's been so long, I no longer live in that area, that I have no recollection of the event. 

Gr1pr

Even better, that aspect is covered in paragraph 2 in the defence template thread,  did you read it  ?

MrProsperous25

I am reading it now, thank you so much.

Car1980

MrProsperous25 said:

Thank you for the swift reply and for the advice. 

I will look for a recent case as advised, and will post here for critique. The one thing though is that it's been so long, I no longer live in that area, that I have no recollection of the event. 

Neither do they. That's why it'll never go to a hearing. They 100% intend to discontinue.

They're using DCB Legal yes?

MrProsperous25

Yeah, they're using DCB Legal.

MrProsperous25

Defence Draft:

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. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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))'.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 seems ok

I suspect that the alleged breach of contract is listed in the POC  ( which you have not redacted and shown us ) so you cannot use the paragraph 3 above,  so not the Chan and Akande paragraph,  so remove it 

You wont find that paragraph in any recent Smart Parking cases,  which I asked you to study

Your replacement paragraph 3 should rebut the POC 

I also mentioned adding the recent untruth paragraph to the defence,  making 11 paragraphs,  yet there are only 10 above   ?

Pa, I'm post 1 you stated that it was a fine, its definitely NOT a fine, magistrates issue fines but nit in these private cases.  Smart Parking have never issued fines, you wont find that word on any paperwork in this case 

Do not mention it in any statements etc, its a legal word with meaning,  doesn't apply and some judges will rule against people using incorrect legal words

MrProsperous25

Thanks for feedback. Will do more studying of what you advised and update. 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 17/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/11/25