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.

Coupon-mad

Too much info!

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

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

Cases will almost certainly be discontinued in 2026, no hearings except maybe in high multiple PCN claims.

Any comments welcome!

Let me know if this doesn't fit into the template defence here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

It will have 11 paragraphs not just the usual 10:

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 includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in bulk, on every undefended claim. 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 this pattern as systemic wholly 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 hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

--------------------

AOS first (YOU WILL NOT GET A REPLY) then make sure you submit your defence, using the MoneyClaim Online system (MCOL).

Follow the first 8 steps in the link above. Bookmark it and this thread.

PLEASE don't post asking us about the fully expected court/DCB Legal letters, Mediation, etc. See the linked thread! 

No new Smart Parking claim threads please except for help months later, at Witness Statement stage (which is when DCB Legal discontinue to avoid hearing fees) but do come back & post in 2026 on @Umkomaas' DCB discontinuances thread with a screenshot of your NoD so we can count all your successes.

sluzz

Hopefully done this right then...

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 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 includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in bulk, on every undefended claim. 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 this pattern as systemic wholly 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 hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

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))'.

1505grandad

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

"It will have 11 paragraphs not just the usual 10:"

You have missed the original Template Defence para 4 (which will now be your para 5  -  the other paras renumbered so you end up as stated by C-m above):-

(original para 4 now your 5):-

"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."

sluzz

1505grandad said:

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

"It will have 11 paragraphs not just the usual 10:"

You have missed the original Template Defence para 4 (which will now be your para 5  -  the other paras renumbered so you end up as stated by C-m above):-

(original para 4 now your 5):-

"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."

Edited - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81766214/#Comment_81766214