DCBL/Smart Parking Limited County Court Claim - Defence help please

DiscoPotato

Hello,

I have read through the newbies thread as regards how to respond to PPC's, however, this incident occurred in 2021 and is now being chased by DCBL for their client and has gotten to County Court Claim stage. I have completed the AoS on MCOL as per advice given on this forum. 

I am currently using the template defence by @Coupon-mad (very grateful for this info available for help). The initial PCN (redacted) is attached.
The vehicle is my dad's car, he's in his eighties, there are 3 of us who are named drivers on it. On the day in question it was used to pick up a wiper blade and fit it in the car park after which it was driven away. I understand that I should have done something to object promptly, but I was advised incorrectly to do nothing and now it has come to County Court Claim.

DiscoPotato

My defence which has been amended from the template is as follows:

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. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 30/10/2021, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant was not the driver and is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 With regards to the POC it is denied that the vehicle was 'unauthorised'. This car park was only used to park while purchasing wiper blades at the branch of Eurocarparts situated at Unit 3 of Kerfoot Industrial Estate, Warrington and there would be no question of a parking contravention or being 'unauthorised'.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.

Please can the more experienced members and @Coupon-mad pick apart and help me make the defence able to be submitted, I do have the 28 days available as the AoS has been completed as of 31st October. 

Gr1pr

In whose name is the N1SDT court claim   ?  Yours ?  Or your dad's  ?

Only the defendant named on the Money Claim can defend it,  nobody else   !

So its Smart Parking via DCB Legal,  the AOS was completed last Friday,  31st October 2025

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below,  plus add a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

DiscoPotato

It's in my dad's name, but I am assisting him with the computer side of things

Gr1pr

OK, but the AOS had to be done in his name and it's not I or MY , it's HIS and he , or the defendant,  you are a stranger to the claim but can assist him as a caring friend or relative,  you are his PA  !

His defence is also via his government gateway account on his MCOL, not yours

Lets see the facts I asked for please 

Issue date 

POC picture  ( redacted   )

Coupon-mad is away on holiday 

DiscoPotato

27th Oct 2025 

[Image redacted for password shown in lower right of letter]

DiscoPotato

Gr1pr said:

OK, but the AOS had to be done in his name and it's not I or MY , it's HIS and he , or the defendant,  you are a stranger to the claim but can assist him as a caring friend or relative,  you are his PA  !

His defence is also via his government gateway account on his MCOL, not yours

Lets see the facts I asked for please 

Issue date 

POC picture  ( redacted   )

Coupon-mad is away on holiday 

I am concerned about submitting the defence (on his behalf as his PA) ( via MCOL, I would rather send it via email and then have a paper copy sent by post so as not to lose anything from the formatting not being recognised.

DiscoPotato

 Apologies, only noticed the password was left on after posting it, here it is again with redaction

DiscoPotato

On preparation for next steps and predicting the process, what is the delegation form I need to give to the mediation team? I cannot find it on gov.uk

Le_Kirk

DiscoPotato said:

On preparation for next steps and predicting the process, what is the delegation form I need to give to the mediation team? I cannot find it on gov.uk

With an issue date of 27/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

Which delegation form are you enquiring about?  Is it perhaps the N180 - DQ form?  If so, this is sent to you by the CNBC sometime after you submit your defence and it is sent to the claimant.

Gr1pr

DiscoPotato said:

Gr1pr said:

OK, but the AOS had to be done in his name and it's not I or MY , it's HIS and he , or the defendant,  you are a stranger to the claim but can assist him as a caring friend or relative,  you are his PA  !

His defence is also via his government gateway account on his MCOL, not yours

Lets see the facts I asked for please 

Issue date 

POC picture  ( redacted   )

Coupon-mad is away on holiday 

I am concerned about submitting the defence (on his behalf as his PA) ( via MCOL,

I would rather send it via email and then have a paper copy sent by post so as not to lose anything from the formatting not being recognised.

In that case you will have to add a suitable header and latest statement of truth footer to the template defence when fully drafted and approved,  and the defendant will have to sign it , save as a pdf and email it as an attachment to the claimresponses email address at the CNBC in Northampton,  checking the senders email account for an auto response back in the inbox or spam folder,  then keep checking the claim history until you know that the imperfect CNBC have actually logged the defence and sent it to the lawyers , not had a default CCJ issued due to missing paperwork or them losing it