Advice on my Defence please -

Beatemmax

First time poster, long time lurker here. I’ve been hassled for the last 2 years from Smart Parking, Debt Recovery + & now DCB Legal & have finally received the HM Court’s & Tribunals letter. 

I’ve followed along as best I can, and have already done the Acknowledgement of the Service of Claim & I’ve been working on the Defence. Could someone glance over and let me know if you think anything needs changing. 

The Key difference in my case to most is that I wasn’t the driver nor am I the registered keeper. Its my wife’s car and she was driving, but I appealed with POPLA but missed the deadline due to no letters being sent until around 4 months after it happened. At first it was My wife receiving the Letters but since I appealed all of a sudden its now my name on everything which baffles me, but I’m happy to continue on. 

Anyways, Please let me know if the below is okay? (I mention Im not the Registered keeper or driver at the end of Paragraph 2.

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 some recollection of events, save as set out below and to state that they are not registered keeper, or the driver of the vehicle 

3. The claim for the alleged overstay is fundamentally flawed due to factors external to the Defendant’s intent. Significant congestion within the car park upon entry resulted in a delay of approximately 15 minutes before the vehicle could be safely parked. Furthermore, the mandatory on-site payment method was unavailable, as the ticket machine was malfunctioning. This compounded the delay, forcing the Appellant to spend additional time downloading and utilising the RingGo application to secure a parking session. The Defendant submits that the ANPR system's entry time fails to account for this unavoidable pre-payment period—specifically the time spent queuing, parking, and remedying the broken machine—which has resulted in a false and inflated period of parking being recorded. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over two years and the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

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))'.

Any advice on the above would be greatly appreciated before i submit. 

ChirpyChicken

You need to change number 3 to being an no liability on your part

Coupon-mad

I think replace both 3 and 4 which are not needed. Instead add a point about this:

"The Key difference in my case to most is that I wasn’t the driver nor am I the registered keeper. Its my wife’s car and she was driving, but I appealed with POPLA but missed the deadline due to no letters being sent until around 4 months after it happened. At first it was My wife receiving the Letters but since I appealed all of a sudden its now my name on everything which baffles me."

Beatemmax

I've reworked this, although I'm worried this then gets claimed against my wife, which I am hopefull it will be unlikely they would try again, as they've failed to address the correct person with the claim. 

How about these for paragraphs 3 & 4?

3. The Defendant asserts that they are not the party liable for the alleged parking charge and submits that the Claimant has no legal standing (locus standi) to bring this claim against them. This is a fundamental failure to comply with the necessary legal requirements. The Defendant submits that they do not fall within the scope of persons against whom a private parking charge can be legally enforced, as they are 1) Not the Driver: The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and, therefore, has no contractual liability under the terms of the alleged parking agreement. 2) Not the Keeper: The Defendant is not the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, which is registered to the Defendant's wife. Consequently, the Defendant is not the statutory party liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4.

4. The Claimant has failed to establish a statutory cause of action against the Defendant under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4. Furthermore, the Claimant’s pursuit of this specific Defendant is irregular and prejudicial: The Claimant, having initially addressed correspondence to the Registered Keeper, has since unilaterally directed all formal action, including this Claim, toward the Defendant (a known non-liable third party). The pursuit of a known non-liable party constitutes a defective service of documents and a demonstrable abuse of process, as the Claimant seeks to secure a judgment against an individual who has no contractual or statutory liability for the charge. The claim must be dismissed as the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action against the Defendant.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do, but in 3 I'd change:

"statutory party liable"

to

liable party

Beatemmax

Please see above letter I have just received after submitting my defence. Can you confirm if this is a standard response, and what the usual outcome is afterwards? I was hoping that submitting the defence meant it could be tossed out? 

Gr1pr

Standard reply

Study the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements,  keep following those 8 steps,  standard stuff,  nothing to see there above 

Your assumptions are incorrect 

They generally fold just before the hearing fee is due in a few months time 

Read some of the 750 discontinued cases in the thread by member Umkomaas 

Coupon-mad

Beatemmax said:

Please see above letter I have just received after submitting my defence. Can you confirm if this is a standard response, and what the usual outcome is afterwards? I was hoping that submitting the defence meant it could be tossed out? 

Errm that's not how it works.

Please read the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread and don't show us these first letters, which are covered there.

You left your name showing on that letter.