DCB legal court claim questions

Hicky68

Please bear with me as I’m a newbie to this. 

I have received a claim form(n1sdt) which I shall post a picture of if possible. 
This is after receiving a letter from DCBL dated 25/5/2025 informing me of a PCN from 03/09/2021. I also received similar letters dated in June/july &Aug. These letters stated that I was not able to appeal the PCN. 

I have no recollection of this as it is such a long time ago and I have never been issued with any letters from Smart Parking Ltd to inform me of any such incident. 

I would presume they have CCTV to show I was in the car park so I do not think I could say otherwise. 

I have completed the online AOS via the gov gateway site. That was completed yesterday 9/11/25. 

I have pasted into my phone notes the response for a reply that has been posted on this site many times. 

Who do I send that response to? The court via gov gateway site or to the DCB legal ? 

This is the response I have got ready to go. 

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. "Regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, The Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable, so the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is misleading the court by citing that law."

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant 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. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

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))'.

  

Hicky68

Sorry but I posted the picture 3 times !! 

Really not good at this tech stuff. 

1505grandad

Para 4. -  check amount in PoC

Hicky68

I have done an updated response. 

Maybe this is the one to send? 

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 never made aware of the original parking charge notice and did not receive a valid Notice to Keeper. The Defendant therefore cannot confirm or deny the allegation of a contravention on 03/09/2021 (as alleged in paragraph 2) because of the age of the claim and the lack of evidence produced by the Claimant.  Because no proper notices were served, the Defendant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the parking charge via the normal process (which may be because any notices were sent to an out-of-date address). The Claimant has not provided full, detailed evidence of a breach of contract (or tort) showing the Defendant (as driver) or the keeper’s liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant denies liability.

4.  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 03/09/2021, as alleged. Defendant denies being the driver, therefore paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

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. 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 

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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'.

11. 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.

Coupon-mad

It's Smart Parking so you need to 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

With an issue date of 29/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 01/12/25

Use MCOL to submit your defence, the template defence thread explains the method and @Coupon-mad has given you sound advice above.