Smart Parking claim via DCB Legal? Group info thread

Meltof

fits like a charm. Thank you. Hopefully, all will be good, the defence submitted.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81959869#Comment_81959869

Yours is the new Smart defence example!

Austinhead

I'm just about to submit my defence using the template in this thread, since I don't understand it all, can someone please confirm whether there is ever any circumstances where I can't just use the defence here verbatim?

The pub that owns the carpark has emailed Smart Parking since I received the particulars of claim, and asked them to cancel the charge (they got rid of it 12 months ago), is this worth mentioning anywhere in the defence?

Any help would be gratefully received. I'm just a bit anxious about the template response being so generic it doesn't entirely apply to my case.

Thanks.

Gr1pr

Use the meltof template dated 12th April, no changes, no additions

Your defence counters the POC

Save Your ammunition for the WS stage in several months time, you put your case at that point

The circumstance you asked about is if the driver was revealed, which would alter the defence

Coupon-mad

since I don't understand it all, can someone please confirm whether there is ever any circumstances where I can't just use the defence here verbatim?

There are no Smart Parking cases where this defence won't work. They are ALL discontinued in the end, by DCB Legal.

And you do understand it all, surely? It's written formally but in plain English. Which parts of the recent updated bespoke Smart Parking defence by @Meltof posted last week on this Group Thread aren't easy to understand? Genuinely: we can help explain.

BattlinSomeCrooks

Just to tag on here. I've silently followed forum advice on a Smart Parking/DCB case but I used the old defence template for them with similar points but different wording.

Just been allocated to local court so expecting witness statement stage and then ultimately discontinuance.

After seeing a new defence I just wanted to check, will the older version still bear the same result now? Or have they closed some gaps the new one closes that I should aim to encapsulate in my WS when that comes around.

Tha me for all the help you've unknowingly provided me so far.

Gr1pr

Either is good, but the newer one contains some different points that are more up to date, its simply evolved

If you have to, add any newer points to your WS , by comparing the 2, simple

Austinhead

Just picking this back up, this section: "

HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

"

The amount claimed on my claim form is £170 (plus interest) not £135 as mentioned above, unless the £170 includes additional costs not listed on here. Am I missing something or do the amounts vary between cases?

Le_Kirk

Your basic charge, the PCN would have been for £100 but the claimant always add the spurious £70 for "debt management fees"

Coupon-mad

The exaggerated amount was £135 in Somerfield (£75 PCN plus £60 fake admin fee added). But that was regarding arrangements at shopping sites in 2010/2011.

And in Beavis only the £85 PCN was allowed and was held to cover all the costs. No add-ons. That parking event was in 2013.

So the entire wording is absolutely applicable to your case. The point is, any add-on is 'double recovery' of the same minor cost of pre-action template letters that were specifically listed by HHJ Moloney and held by binding case law, to be covered by a PCN.