SMART PARKING, DCB LEGAL court claim Nov. 2025

DefiantNewbie

Here is a draft of my defense 

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.

The allegations and claimed heads of cost are vague, and the Defendant denies liability for the sum claimed or any sum at all. Interest should, in any event, be disallowed, as any delay in bringing proceedings lies entirely with the Claimant. Such delay prejudices the Defendant’s ability to recover material evidence or recall events. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct, with further costs under CPR 46.5. The Defendant admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle at the relevant time

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.

2. The Defendant notes that the alleged incident dates back to May 2021. The Claimant’s delay of several years in issuing proceedings is unreasonable and has caused significant prejudice to the Defendant’s ability to recall events or locate contemporaneous evidence. At the time, the Defendant promptly submitted an online appeal to Smart Parking, evidenced by a screenshot confirming the PCN reference, yet no response was ever received. The Defendant therefore denies the Claimant’s assertion that no appeal was made. The location was a shopping-centre car park where the Defendant remained for approximately thirty minutes in the evening (around 20:00 – 20:30). The Defendant reasonably believed that short-term parking was permitted, as is customary at comparable retail sites nearby. The area was poorly illuminated, and several signs were mounted high on lamp posts—around two metres above ground level—with small text, rendering them difficult to read. The combination of inadequate lighting, elevated sign placement, and unclear information meant that no contractual terms were sufficiently brought to the driver’s attention, and any purported agreement is therefore void for lack of adequate notice.

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))'.

Le_Kirk

DefiantNewbie said:

Le_Kirk said:

What is the date of issue of the claim form and upon what date was the AoS completed.

Claim was issued, 05/11/2025 and I did AoS 10/11/2025. 

With an issue date of 05/11/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 08/12/25

You have a paragraph without a number (every paragraph requires a number) and you then have two paragraphs numbered #2.
Have you looked at other recent defences files by posters against Smart?

DefiantNewbie

Le_Kirk said:

DefiantNewbie said:

Le_Kirk said:

What is the date of issue of the claim form and upon what date was the AoS completed.

Claim was issued, 05/11/2025 and I did AoS 10/11/2025. 

With an issue date of 05/11/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 08/12/25

Appreciate it, thanks !

1505grandad

"The Defendant admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle at the relevant time"

I would suggest that the larger para 2 states the D is driver.

The usual Smart defences include an "untruth" para which, if the above para 2 wording is included, would not be relevant for your case.

Coupon-mad

We didn't tell you to use just the template defence. We advised to copy another Smart defence because there's an extra paragraph. We won't link one. There are hundreds.

DefiantNewbie

Hi , Sorry I had a little time to properly go through cases and I am not familiar with a lot of terminology, I have found the additional paragraph (no 4 in my defense) I also numbered the paragraphs

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 Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of more than four years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

4. The Claimant seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle, but 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. As a result, the Defendant denies any liability as the keeper of the vehicle

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))'.

Coupon-mad

Too much detail in para 3.  Just copy another one on page one right now.

Gr1pr

That's a lot better,  but prune paragraph 3,  so its more like this one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6640055/claim-form-nov-2025-smart-parking-via-dcb-legal#latest

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SMART PARKING,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Le_Kirk

Agree with @Coupon-mad and @Gr1pr, a lot of that should be saved for the witness statement.

DefiantNewbie

Gr1pr said:

That's a lot better,  but prune paragraph 3,  so its more like this one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6640055/claim-form-nov-2025-smart-parking-via-dcb-legal#latest

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like 

SMART PARKING,  DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Okay great, I have adjust the linked paragraph and updated my 3 as following . Also I was not clear whether I use MCOL site to submit defense or I send through email?

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. Given the passage of more than four years and the lack of detail in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full response. Signage at the material time may also have been unclear or insufficient. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.