Court Summons - DCB Legal for Smart Parking, Dreamlands in Margate

schmuel

Hello,

I have received a county court claim form for a parking event in March 2024 at the Dreamlands carpark in Margate. The carpark is operated by Smart Parking. For anyone interested, a pdf of the form (with identifying information redacted) can be downloaded here:  https://www.mediafire.com/file/57n0v1cy2jpcy48/Claim_Form.pdf/file.

Amount claimed is around £280 which covers the "parking charge and damages" (£170), some interest, court fee, and legal costs.

I don't remember receiving any letters about this event, or receiving a NTK; we moved house in May 2024 but I didn't update my address with the DVLA til later, and before that were living with family while we renovated, so there were some issues with post getting to us. I have no idea whether or not i was driving, my wife and I both drive so could have been either of us (I obviously haven't admitted to being the driver). 

I will prepare a defence as per Coupon-mad's advice on post 2 in the newbies thread and post here when it's ready. I'd be grateful for advice first thoguh on how to proceed with the driver/POFA issue, as I am unsure who was driving at the time - should I state that I'm unsure/don't recall, or simply that I don't acknowledge being the driver, or something else..?

I'm also unclear as to whether or not this claim includes "false admin costs" - it doesn't seem obvious that it does unless I'm missing something? If there are no false admin costs, does that change the template defence? 

Any advice gratefully received!

Gr1pr

Definitely not a summons , it's a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

Don't use the template defence,  you want the bespoke 11 paragraph defence specifically for Smart Parking DCB Legal cases

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642762/smart-parking-claim-via-dcb-legal-group-info-thread#latest

The added £70 plus some interest are false costs,  in every Smart Parking case

schmuel

Thanks Gr1pr -

I have put the below 11 paras together for my defence which I will send after I have done the AOS on MCOL. Paras 1,2 and 6-11 are from the normal template defence, paras 3-5 are the Smart Parking-specific ones from the group thread.

Will update again in due course 

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.

5.  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.

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))'.

Coupon-mad

All good! As you've seen, from today, we now have a group thread because the Smart Claim threads were unmanageable:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642762/smart-parking-claim-via-dcb-legal-group-info-thread#latest

EDIT - I see you used it - yay!

They'll discontinue in 2026 regardless of what exact defence goes in. We'll catch up with the hundreds of Smart claim Defendants in 9-12 months once you all get your discontinuances to share with Umkomaas on his DCB thread.

Compliments of the Season!