CCJ from old parking ticket, what should I do?

Koy10

Coupon-mad said:

OK... maybe... when I get time.

I hear you & I'm listening but after well over a hundred exact same "Help, I've got a claim from DCB Legal/Smart Parking" threads replied on with the exact same standard advice, day after day after week after month this year, I now feel "all Smarted out"!

Personally, I really hate templates on this board. They are a bugbear of mine. I think template complaints and dispute wording set up word for word can make people lazy and it certainly loses effect which isn't a good thing. The defence template goes against the grain for me. I was really reluctant but needs must.

I do already tell people in the Smart Group thread to "renumber the paras and they'll have 11 altogether". I also give a link to the Template Defence which is also something I never do because posters should read thd NEWBIES thread before posting and find the template.

In fact, any poster could post the full defence there. Doesn't have to be me!

i wholeheartedly get your frustration. Ive been there back in the day when id upload phone jailbreak tutorials for Dummies yet id still get plenty of Qs about stuff thats been covered fully.
anyway, ive posted the full template, would appreciate clarification on the para 4 confusion i mentioned above..

FROM TEMPLATE-

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.

FROM GROUP TEMPLATE- 

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

4.   The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law. Further, this claim includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in bulk, on every undefended claim. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.

5. (was 4.1. in group template)  The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise this pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usual course of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

FROM TEMPLATE (para numbers have had +1) -

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))'.

Coupon-mad

That cannot be right.

You can't change my para 4.1 to 5 (thereby adding 2 new paras to the usual template defence) and still end up with only 11.

Koy10

Coupon-mad said:

That cannot be right.

You can't change my para 4.1 to 5 (thereby adding 2 new paras to the usual template defence) and still end up with only 11.

Thats what I mean, it's confusing or I'm just being dumb.
It goes like this.. 
1
2
3 (Group thread) 
4 (Group thread) 
4.1 (Group thread) 
5
6
7
8
9
10
Making a total of 11 para

1505grandad

Coupon-mad said:

And do not remove the old para 4 from the template defence. Renumber it all up to 11.

Please don't show us! It doesn't need checking and this is what the Group Thread has been created to avoid.

The old para 4 from Defence Template Announcement (missing from this thread?):-

"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."

Koy10

Would love some clarification, my deadline is tomorrow! 

Le_Kirk

Koy10 said:

Would love some clarification, my deadline is tomorrow! 

The thread by @Micky2022 has been held as a good example of a Smart Parking defence by @Coupon-mad: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81739287/#Comment_81739287

Koy10

Le_Kirk said:

Koy10 said:

Would love some clarification, my deadline is tomorrow! 

The thread by @Micky2022 has been held as a good example of a Smart PArking defence by @Coupon-mad: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81739287/#Comment_81739287

Yes, I was going to use that template but adjusting para 3 to be relevant to my case. My original para 3 can be found on page 2 of this thread.
It was then flagged that para 3, 4, and a 4.1 were have been revised and created on a new DCB group thread which is where my confusion is https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642762/smart-parking-claim-via-dcb-legal-group-info-thread#latest

Gr1pr

I doubt that it matters that much, just tailor it to suit your case,  templates are guides,  not set in stone 

Ensure that your changes do not conflict,  such as adding a Pofa2012 paragraph if admitting to being the driver

Ensure that your adaptations rebut or refute the POC allegation 

Never volunteer information that isn't required at this early stage,  some people want to explain themselves or create long stories,  yet that is what your WS next year is for 

In simple terms,  your defence is,  not guilty   ( so prove your case   ), same as in criminal cases, even if its obvious 

The main thing is to check that it fits into the 122 lines on MCOL,  pruning if necessary 

Koy10

thanks for everyone's help. i don't have much free time left today, so i will be subitting the following by around 10pm this evening.

if there any suggested changes, ill be happy to apply them.

ive also checked, the below fits in MCOL with 2 lines remaining.

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. The defendant was not the the driver and has no liability in law
as the claimants notice to keeper was non pofa so liability rests
with the driver. Liability can not in law flow from the driver to
the keeper in this situation and therefore liability is denied in
full.

4. from Group info thread -  The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is 
knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by 
citing that law. Further, this claim includes fake (double 
recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County 
Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award 
simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on 
the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top 
line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in 
bulk, on every undefended claim. This conduct is an abuse of the 
court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from 
sanctions to amend the POC.

4.1. from Group info thread - The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for 
the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise this 
pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue 
special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant 
follows the usual course of abusing the court system then 
discontinuing to avoid hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable 
by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an 
application.

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))'.

ChirpyChicken

If you never admitted to driving in any appeal or didnt appeal then use this as point 3 

The defendant was not the the driver and has no liability in law
as the claimants notice to keeper was non pofa so liability rests
with the driver. Liability can not in law flow from the driver to
the keeper in this situation and therefore liability is denied in
full