DCB Legal defence for Smart Parking Ltd

KeepCalmCarryOn

Hi all,

I've read through the different posts and advice (so helpful thank you!) but wondered if someone could advise on my defence for a DCB Legal Smart Parking Ltd claim. I'm writing my defence for the below claim form and have seen that for DCB Legal Parking Eye claims you can use the below for para 3:

"Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case, paragraph 3 can be the wording re CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257"

Mine is DCB Legal but for Smart Parking Ltd so does anyone know if the above still applies or if I need to write my own para 3? For more context the allegation was 3.5 years ago and I never would have parked there if I thought Id get a fine, but it was unleased public land up for sale so a vacant property, and only a very small sign on the building next to the car park to say you couldn't park, all of which I can find photo evidence for on google streetview.

Thank you!

Gr1pr

Here is the simple answer 

Look at a dozen recent Smart Parking DCB Legal cases over the last 2 or 3 months 

Study their defences,  where they have altered paragraphs 2 & 3, adapt yours accordingly 

Then add the recent untruth paragraph as paragraph 4, renumbering the rest,  giving you 11 numbered paragraphs 

We can check your amended paragraphs 2 & 3

Your final draft will be 11 paragraphs,  not the standard 10 paragraphs , but is still based on the template defence,  so similar to this thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6637053/threatened-with-ccj-after-parking-fine-over-4-years-ago-need-advice-for-next-steps-please#latest

KeepCalmCarryOn

Hi @Gr1pr
Thanks for your advice! I've added the 'untruths' paragraph as paragraph 4, but I'm just struggling on what to include in paragraph 3 as I couldn't find a similar 'lack of signage' Smart Parking case in the thread.
Basically the land I parked on was private land with a 'To Let' building, with no signage to say that it wasn't permitted to park there. This happened in June 2022, and looking at Google Maps streetview, there is an image from April 2021 showing no signage. Then looking at gov.uk property information it was purchased in August 2022, after the alleged contravention, which is when streetview images change to show that parking is chargeable.

Is this information strong enough to use as defence given that photos can't be submitted on the MCOL system, or would you just include the following instead? 
"Moreover, given the passage of over 3 years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time."

Coupon-mad

Please just copy another Smart Parking defence. We don't even need threads about them! Just copy another Smart Parking defence because there's an extra paragraph.

35 links to Smart cases are in a post by me on page 14 of the Public Consultation thread so they aren't hard to find on the forum.

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the claim form?

KeepCalmCarryOn

Ive submitted my AoS to MCOL so ive got until next Monday 17th to submit the defence. 

Coupon-mad

But you don't need that time because you're just copying another Smart Parking defence.

KeepCalmCarryOn

Thanks for help so far, navigating this whole process and the forum are an absolute minefield when you're new to it all!

From another post, I was going to put the following as my para 2 and 3 but dont know whether to even mention the insufficient signage above or whether to just leave it as follows, as it's evidence ive gleaned from Google street view rather than from memory as it was so long ago.

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 admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle on 13 July 2021, the date on which the Parking Charge was issued. The Defendant further contends that the Notice To Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

3. 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. This is important because 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 – as 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.

Gr1pr

2 is OK , apart from the word ISSUED 

3 should be a new 4, then renumber to 11

Then add a typical paragraph 3 as seen in numerous recent Smart Parking threads

But no stories 

Coupon-mad

You are missing the added paragraph which is why you just needed to copy another Smart defence.

Given there are 35 Smart court claim threads linked in a post by me on p14 of the Public Consultation thread, and hundreds more here this Summer/Autumn, they are not difficult to find on the forum and we don't need to link one for you. Just search. Look on page one. They are everywhere!

1505grandad

"The Defendant admits being the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver of the vehicle on 13 July 2021, the date on which the Parking Charge was issued."

You will of course amend the above so that it is relevant to your case.