Court Claim from DCB Legal - just double checking I'm doing everything correct

smartparkingapphater

I've received a court claim and am just filing my defence for the MCOL but wanted to check I'm doing everything correctly please. I have copied the 10 paragraph statement I found in the forum and am currently drafting paragraph 3 so some advice on my paragraph 3 would be greatly appreciated. Here are the details of my case:

Back in October 2020, (in between COVID-19 lockdowns) I overstayed the free 45 minutes at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury, by less than 15 minutes I think. I'm pretty sure the car park had only recently been taken over by Smart Parking and that you used to get a full hour previously. I didn't read all the info at the sign because lots of people were standing around trying to read it so I didn't want to be so close to that many people. I saw that it said smart parking so I downloaded the app. I was getting my hair cut and had an appointment but it overran so I tried to go onto the app and see if I had to pay for any extra time. On the app, it couldn't find the car park Angouleme Way so I couldn't pay for any extra time.

I then didn't receive the original letter(s) where they ask for the £40 (possibly because we were in full lockdown then). Instead I received a letter saying I had missed the deadline and had to pay an increased amount (£80 or even £170, I can't remember now). I tried to dispute this with Smart Parking and sent them screenshots of the problem I had with the app but they said since it was after the deadline I was too late and were very unhelpful with the whole thing. I then ignored a couple of follow up letters (as advised on this forum) and they then didn't get in touch with me for a few years.

I then received several letters from DCBL threatening to take me to court so I ignored those too and recently got a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals service.


I've filled in the MCOL to say that I am disputing the whole claim and am now drafting my defence. Please can someone read this that I will be putting into paragraph 3 to see if it sounds correct.

MY PARAGRAPH 3..........

3. Over 5 years ago now, in between the national lockdowns in 2020 I accidentally overstayed the free 45 minutes allowed. Before Smart Parking Ltd took over this car park it used to be 1 hour free. I didn't get chance to read the sign in full because lots of people were crowded around it and I didn't want to be that close to so many people, so I wasn't aware of the changed free time period. I downloaded the app and when I was delayed in the barbers, I tried to check on whether I needed to pay for any extra time in case I overran. In the app it wouldn't find the car park 'Angouleme Way retail park' so I couldn't do anything to pay for overstaying the 45 minutes. Further to this, I didn't receive the original letter asking for the £40 payment (possibly because we were in full lockdown then). I only received the letter saying I had missed the deadline and now had to pay the full amount (£80 I think). When I tried to speak to Smart Parking to resolve the matter they were very unhelpful and dismissive. I spent quite a long time trying to phone them and speak to them online without any joy so decided I wouldn't waste anymore of my time trying to resolve the matter.

Does this sound ok for paragraph 3? Any bits I should add or change? Any help would be very gratefully received, thanks.

smartparkingapphater

p.s. I think I overstayed the 45 minutes by 10 minutes or so, it was so long ago I can't remember and they haven't mentioned that in the recent letters.

Gr1pr

Definitely not,  that is more like a witness statement and admittance,  plus it should be in the third person too, so scrap it as a paragraph 3, none of it should be used, especially if your claim is Smart Parking via DCB Legal  ?

Start over,  adapting this excellent 11 paragraph example below, ( so 11 paragraphs , not 10  ) adapting paragraph 3 to suit,  removing the station part, but no blabbing about who was driving,  just denial of the POC on your claim form,  save the stories for next year,  if at all

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below,  plus post the date that you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL too

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

1505grandad

" I tried to dispute this with Smart Parking and sent them screenshots of the problem I had with the app....."

Did you state who the driver was?

smartparkingapphater

1505grandad said:

" I tried to dispute this with Smart Parking and sent them screenshots of the problem I had with the app....."

Did you state who the driver was?

I don't think I did, it was 5 years ago so can barely remember the details. I think I said "I tried to buy extra time" but that doesn't explicitly say that I was the driver. And also, would they bring that online chat information up from 5 years ago if it did go to court?

ChirpyChicken

if online chat then no 

Gr1pr

It wont be going to court 

Use a paragraph 3 that mentions the passage of time and no recollection of who was driving etc

Same for the paragraph 2 ending 

Coupon-mad

smartparkingapphater said:

1505grandad said:

" I tried to dispute this with Smart Parking and sent them screenshots of the problem I had with the app....."

Did you state who the driver was?

I don't think I did, it was 5 years ago so can barely remember the details. I think I said "I tried to buy extra time" but that doesn't explicitly say that I was the driver. And also, would they bring that online chat information up from 5 years ago if it did go to court?

It won't go to a hearing.

As it's Smart Parking, you need the standard para 3 plus the extra paragraph 4 seen in all other Smart Parking threads.

No link. No need to ask us. It is that easy!

smartparkingapphater

Gr1pr said:

Definitely not,  that is more like a witness statement and admittance,  plus it should be in the third person too, so scrap it as a paragraph 3, none of it should be used, especially if your claim is Smart Parking via DCB Legal  ?

Start over,  adapting this excellent 11 paragraph example below, ( so 11 paragraphs , not 10  ) adapting paragraph 3 to suit,  removing the station part, but no blabbing about who was driving,  just denial of the POC on your claim form,  save the stories for next year,  if at all

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below,  plus post the date that you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL too

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

Thanks a lot! Yes it was from Smart Parking originally, then DCBL, almost the exact same letter that this guy received. I've used his response instead and just changed the venue in paragraph 3 and the time to 5 years instead of 4, everything else I just kept the same. I'll submit that later this evening as long as everyone thinks it will work? Here's the full response....

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. Any stay at Angouleme Way Retail Park, Bury, was either within paid time or covered by a reasonable extension, including mandatory grace periods under the relevant Code of Practice. Given the passage of more than five 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. As outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Claim, 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))'.

Gr1pr

Looks OK to me,  it really is that easy when 95% of the work has already been done and approved 

Dcb legal  ( not DCBL ) will discontinue next year,  just before the hearing fee is due to be paid 

Coupon-mad

Easy innit?

No more threads needed for Smart cases.