Smart Parking claim via DCB Legal? Group info thread

sluzz

Hello, had a letter from HM Court & Tribunals Service and a claim form regarding a Smart Parking PCN ignored since July 2023, and I am now thinking of just paying it due to this letter (£288) as it's from the courts and I figure I'm at the end of the road with this.

Appealed a while back (was 10 mins over parking time), but didn't hear anything back.

I know there is a newbies thread, but looking at it is just overwhelming on which bit I need to focus on.

Any help would be appreciated.

Gr1pr

No paying   !  Definitely not  ,  Read this one 

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

Read post 2 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  plus read the first post in the defence template thread in announcements too

ChirpyChicken

When you appealed did you admit to driving
Why would be at the end of the road when a good defence will see it discontinued ?
Get it out of your head about paying 

Coupon-mad

 I am now thinking of just paying it due to this letter (£288) as it's from the courts and I figure I'm at the end of the road with this.

Teehee!

Oh no you won't! 

I am close to not being able to bring myself to reply on any more Smart claim threads. We have HUNDREDS and the defence is so easy.

Copy & paste from any other Smart defence. No need for us to keep checking these cases. They ALL end up discontinued before hearings and no poster will pay a penny.

Can we use this as a new group thread please, that all other new posters consult and don't start any more Smart Parking claim threads?

We must stop these repeat threads and just have one.

This can be it if the OP doesn't mind. We cannot sustain this same advice on thread after thread a dozen times a day.

sluzz

Coupon-mad said:

This can be it if the OP doesn't mind. We cannot sustain this same advice on thread after thread a dozen times a day.

No problems here.

Coupon-mad

sluzz said:

Coupon-mad said:

This can be it if the OP doesn't mind. We cannot sustain this same advice on thread after thread a dozen times a day.

No problems here.

Great!

Thanks, we are desperate for ONE thread,

It will help you too because it will be the thread showing everyone with a Smart Parking claim how to defend and that - if you follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread - these cases are discontinued before hearings.

Please can you edit your title to:

Smart Parking claim via DCB Legal? Group info thread

and we will post the generic para 3 and 4 for everyone to add to the Template defence.

sluzz

Coupon-mad said:

Please can you edit your title to:

Smart Parking claim via DCB Legal? Group info thread

and we will post the generic para 3 and 4 for everyone to add to the Template defence.

Done, just submitted AOS on MCOL and looking at the template now.

Is this ok for paragraph 3? Not sure how honest to be.

3. The Defendant denies that a breach occurred. A valid payment was made and the vehicle was only around ten minutes beyond the paid period. The industry Code of Practice requires reasonable grace periods, and no clear signage stated that such a minor overstay would incur a £100 charge. The alleged overstay was trivial, caused no loss, and falls within a grace period a motorist is entitled to rely upon. Furthermore, the Defendant appealed the PCN but received no acknowledgement or reply and heard nothing further, which prevented any opportunity to resolve matters at the time. No contract was breached.

Coupon-mad

Too much info!

As this is now the Smart Parking defence Group thread, please delete that draft.

Everyone can just put this into the Template Defence & re-number it to 11 paragraphs:

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

4.   The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law. Further, this claim has added fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded 8% interest (calculated in the exaggerated total from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts the power to award simple interest but this power is discretionary. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.

4.1.  The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise it as systemic unreasonable conduct and might issue special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usual course of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid a hearing fee) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.