DCB Legal Defence Para 3 November 2025 help

Rinkydinkpanic

Hi all. Thank you so much for this webpage, was really stressed about the threatening CCJ letter.

I have submitted the MCOL and will be uploading my defence very soon. Hoping someone is willing to have a quick look at my Para 3. I'm not the smartest guy in the world and want to get this right. I will be using your template letter with paragraphs 1-10, I have had a stab at paragraph 3. Does this look reasonable?

3. I appealed this charge back in 2022. I dropped off my partner who had recently suffered an ACL injury and was on crutches. She was collecting medication from a store.  I waited a few minutes in the bay as permitted and then sent her a text to say I was moving from the bay to park elsewhere as drop off bay had restrictions. I left via the barrier with immediate effect. I parked briefly on the public highway and shortly afterwards she rang me to say she was ready to be collected so I returned via the entry barrier and collected her from the initial drop off point. When I received the parking fine claim from Smart Parking I submitted the text I sent her as evidence (which was date / time stamped) as proof of my manoeuvres. This was ignored. I heard nothing further until 17/10/25 claimant letter.

Please feel free to advise, as I say, I'm really out of my comfort zone and am stressing quite a bit.

I did not wait over time in the drop off bay. Given this was over 3yrs ago I can't remember the permitted times and no longer have a copy of the text I sent as appeal. I'm not sure if this is double dip, I just know the text I sent stated to my partner that I was moving due to parking restrictions are-entered / parked very soon after.

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Defences are written in the third person.

Is this Smart Parking? If yes there is an extra paragraph and you don't admit to driving,

Rinkydinkpanic

Thank you so much for responding. It is smart parking. I'll look for extra paragraph. If I'm not admitting to driving do I write 'the driver dropped off a passenger, a text was sent etc?

Gr1pr

Just slightly adapt any recent 11 paragraph Smart Parking DCB Legal defence,  mainly rebutting the claim form POC 

No admitting anything at this early stage 

Coupon-mad

Rinkydinkpanic said:

Thank you so much for responding. It is smart parking. I'll look for extra paragraph. If I'm not admitting to driving do I write 'the driver dropped off a passenger, a text was sent etc?

No, you just copy another Smart defence. Look around, we have hundreds here this year.

Rinkydinkpanic

Thanks both. I've spent an hour navigating the forum but can't see a SMART case similar to mine. I'm easily confused and have to admit to being so at the moment😌. The template says to draft your particulars for para 3. I've tried that above but been advised to not admit to anything. Sorry guys I'm struggling to understand. I truly appreciate your guidance, it's my stress levels at the moment. 

Coupon-mad

But there are hundreds, all of which would come up in your search results. Just copy one.

35 of them are linked in a post by me on p14 of the Public Consultation thread, for starters.

Gr1pr

Generally speaking,  the Smart claims have one of two possible alleged breaches 

Look at your POC,  see which it is, copy another one from within the last 6 weeks, will 11 paragraphs,  not 10

Alter a few details like dates etc to suit your own case 

No need to go into details at this early defence stage 

Le_Kirk

Rinkydinkpanic said:

I have submitted the MCOL
I heard nothing further until 17/10/25 claimant letter.

Do you mean completed the AoS?
Is that the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form?  If not, can you post the date please and we can advise you of you deadline for defence
If you have completed the AoS and that is the date of issue, then: -

With an issue date of 17/10/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/11/25

Rinkydinkpanic

Thank you again kind people. @Le_Kirk I'm not great at this. I filled in the AoS on 30/10/25 using MCOL.

I'm struggling navigating the forum, can't even find the public consultation referred too😌. I have however found a similar case I think.  How does para 3 look now? I've uploaded the whole 10 paras, hopefully that's ok. Be gentle.

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 Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant breached terms of parking on 20 April 2022. This is denied. The Defendant has no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the purported Parking Charge Notice (PCN), and not recalling receipt of any valid notices or reminders. Given that the alleged event occurred over three years ago, the Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to recall who was driving and therefore denies liability in any capacity. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, the contractual terms said to have been broken, the evidence relied upon, the identity of the driver, and full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they seek to transfer liability to the keeper. Furthermore, any alleged stay would either have been within the permitted period or subject to a reasonable extension, including grace periods required under the applicable Code of Practice. The Particulars of Claim are vague and inadequate, failing to disclose sufficient detail of the alleged contravention, and the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective, or inadequate at the time, such that no contract could have been properly formed.

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))'.

 

Coupon-mad

No. You need the extra paragraph.

Copy another Smart Defence. There are 35 linked in a post by me in the Public Consultation thread. Which you CAN find in two seconds flat because it's one of my discussion threads in my profile.

Or you could just search the forum to find it.

Or you could just search the forum for.

Smart DCB Legal claim