DCB LEGAL, SMART PARKING, court claim, defended, at WS stage

Coupon-mad

They'll discontinue before that.

Stockport128

I hope so.

I will crack on with the WS bundle this week.

Thanks

Stockport128

Would you mind checking to see if this all looks ok or needs anything taking away or adding please?

Apologies if it’s total rubbish.

1.  I, XX of XXX am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.
3.  I am a litigant in person, and I have never received any legal training, formal or otherwise. I have done my best to present my evidence truthfully and in a clear manner, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:
Outline of circumstances
4. I confirm that on 08/03/24 I was the registered keeper of a XXXX. I confirm that on that date I was not the driver of the vehicle.
5. On the date in question I was in work and due to the elapsed time I have no recollection of the events on the said date.
6.The only time I was made aware of the PCN was when I received the letter Of Claim dated 21/10/25. I believe all earlier correspondence NTKs were sent to the wrong address.
7.I believe this stopped me having the right to appeal or dispute the charges brought against me.
8.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim.
9. The first Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (click for link) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 that “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract”. 
10.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim.
 
The Claimants Authority to Issue Parking Charges
11.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue. Under the DVLA KADOE agreement and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 9 - February 2024 (Clause 7), the right to manage this site and access my data is strictly reliant upon written landowner authority. The Claimant has not provided any witness statement or evidence for me to formulate a defence. Therefore, I respectfully request that the claimant discloses the contract, its schedules, images of the signage at the entrance to the car park and signs within the car park (taken at the time of the alleged contravention) and a verified site boundary map. 
I also request that they provide details of any grace period that has been agreed by the landowner.
My research of similar cases brought by this claimant indicate that they will likely rely on a digital stock image of the sign detailing the terms and conditions at the site and an unverified aerial view to prove the Claimant had the legal authority to operate on this specific land on the 8th of March 2024.
12.  It is my understanding that the burden of proving the specific terms of that alleged contract to the Court lie solely with the claimant. Until the points outlined in paragraph 11 are provided the claimant cannot even attempt to prove that a binding contract was ever formed. Without legible evidence of the terms, the Court cannot conclude that any such contract exists. In the absence of both a visible Landowner Agreement and legible evidence of the contractual terms, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action.
13. Permitting a Claimant to proceed based on a mere 'assertion' that a landowner agreement exists would set a dangerous precedent. The Court is invited to draw an adverse inference that no such authority exists.
No Valid Contract Formed
14. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract term was breached. However, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and something of value given in return — which was not present here. Under section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 
15.  Looking at Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) and section 62 of the CRA, which require fair, open dealing and good faith. Based on the complete absence of any evidence detailing signage at the location that they will rely on to prove that a contract was formed. The Claimant is therefore required to prove their case with photographs of signage that they rely on to form a contract. The photographs should show the signs that were in place at the car park on 8th March 2024 when the alleged contravention occurred
16.  The absence of any signage at the site approach and entrance used by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is particularly significant under Sections 62–68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ( Consumer Rights Act 2015 ), contractual terms must be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. Additionally, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), the Claimant is contractually obliged to comply with the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. Section 19.2 of this Code states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance…”.
I request that the claimant provides evidence of how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.
Keeper Liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
17.  As previously stated, I confirm that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXX on 08 March 2024 and deny any liability.
18.  The Claimant states in their POC:
“The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the sign (the contract). Reason: Overstayed free time”
“In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2021, Schedule 12.”
19.  I have never been identified as the driver, nor has any other person. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the I was driving at the time of the alleged breach. Only the driver as the person who could have potentially seen and accepted any terms on the signage could possibly be the party accepting any contract.
20. There is no legal requirement for me as registered keeper to name a driver in a private parking matter, and no such presumption exists in law.
21.  If the Claimant wishes to pursue me as the driver, then the claimant has to prove on the balance of probabilities, that I was in fact driving. It is not enough to speculate or assume. As I have stated, I was not the driver as I was in work on that day In March 2024. I assert that this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that I was not the driver, and therefore supersedes the balance of probability test required in these Civil Court proceedings.
22.  In April 2023, HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward (VCS Limited V Ian Mark Edward | PDF) that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.
23. If as the POC states the Claimant seeks to pursue me as the keeper then they must meet the strict requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the keeper. ( Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )
24.  However, the Parking Charge Notice issued by the Claimant on 08/03/2024 does not include any of the mandatory requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. For the following reasons:
• The notice to keeper does not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full, as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
• The notice to keeper does not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
• The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Smart Parking LTD. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
25.  The claimant has omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (b) (e) and (f). The claimant has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.
So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver.
26.  Private parking firms inability to invoke ‘keeper liability in cases of non-compliance with POFA, has been tested on appeal in private parking cases including in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court (Exhibit XXX /04), on appeal re-claim number C0DP9C4E, HHJ Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable without the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Excel's claim was dismissed.
27.  The Claimant’s failure to invoke POFA 2012 is indicative of their practice at the time. The Claimant is among a group of operators that at that time,  chose to bypass the statutory requirements of Schedule 4.
28. My research into a number of the Claimant’s Notice to Keeper issued at the time of my own confirms this was a systemic choice. Without exception, Smart Parking Ltd NTKs from this period omitted any mention of POFA 2012 or keeper liability. 
29. The above demonstrates that at the time of the alleged contravention, the Claimant was issuing NTKs where only the driver could be held contractually liable.
30.  Bringing a claim with the full knowledge that the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability have not been met constitutes unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). This has resulted in a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, forcing the me to contest a claim that the Claimant and their solicitors knew, or ought to have known, had no prospect of success from the outset. I feel this tactic is designed to scare people into paying unjustified and over inflated parking charges and costs through the threat of court action that is in my limited legal understanding, unenforceable.
Inflated and Unlawful Charges
31.  According to Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. ( Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )
32.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.
The POC for this case claims the following amounts:
Amount Claimed £193.92
Court Fee £35.00
Legal Representatives Costs £50.00
Total £278.92
This is clearly more than the total of £170 as outlined in the LOC.
33.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (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 UKSC67 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf).
34.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely inflated and disproportionate sum; it is denied that the amount sought is recoverable, and I assert that it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.
35.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(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'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
36.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.
37.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
Conclusion
38.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide vague details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in my defence.
39. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.
40.  Moreover, the Claimant has neither identified the driver nor complied with the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to pursue me as the registered keeper. The Claimant’s attempt to imply keeper liability despite issuing a non‑POFA Notice to Keeper is legally unsound.
41.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.
42. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.
Unreasonable Conduct by Claimant(CPR 27.14(2)(g))
43.  As an alternative to striking out the claim, I respectfully request that the Court consider a determination that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant is professionally represented by a firm of solicitors specialising in private parking litigation and cannot claim ignorance of the statutory requirements governing their own industry. In their POC they state that they are pursuing me in my capacity as keeper, yet the Claimant has failed to mention or reference the POFA in any correspondence that they intend to rely on. As previously stated, I am yet to receive the claimants witness statement. This has left me in the position of defending this claim on the basis of the limited detail held in respect of said POC and the LOC that I have obtained.
44.  As Schedule 4 of POFA provides the sole statutory mechanism in English law to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is knowingly asking the Court to grant a remedy for which they have provided no legal authority. The Claimant has demonstrated a complete disregard for the law and caused an unnecessary waste of the Court’s resources by ignoring the specific issues their own failure to comply with POFA raised in my Defence. No reasonable litigant, let alone a specialist professional, could genuinely believe this position to be viable.
45.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms or any explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a  “debt recovery” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.
46.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading evidence, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
 
SCHEDULE OF LOSSES
Travel Expenses

1. Attending the Hearing at County Court (116 miles total)
   116 miles x £0.45 per mile = £52.20
   Subtotal: £52.20
   Litigant in Person Costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g) – If Awarded)
   I estimate that I have spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement.
   If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I respectfully seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £19/hour.
   12 hours preparation x £19/hour = £228.00
   Subtotal (if awarded): £228.00
   TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £63.80
   If unreasonable behaviour proven:
   TOTAL (including LiP costs): £291.80

Sign..

Date..

1505grandad

Just checking - did you include the Chan and Akande cases in the Defence you filed?

Stockport128

Just checked and I only used Parking Eye v Beavis by the looks of it.

Gr1pr

If the POC had the alleged breach listed, you dont use Chan and Akande

Stockport128

alleged breach- overstayed free time

Gr1pr

Then remove the Chan and Akande stuff

Stockport128

will do thanks

Stockport128

I will take out paragraphs 9 and 10.

Would you recommend replacing or including anything else on the statement ?