Claim Form received

Samadysam

I’ve received a Claim Form regarding a parking ticket from 20/08/23. I can’t remember but I think it’s one I may have appealed. We overstayed our time but it was because we were blocked in whilst trying to leave. We’d parked in an overflow area of grass and there was a fun fair on and it was busy when we were trying to leave. We had just gone for a walk on our wedding anniversary with our 1 year old. Does the template defence still work in our situation? I’m worried I can’t remember the details from the day and we’ve since moved house so I have either thrown away or lost the paperwork. Thanks 

Gr1pr

Which parking company. ?  Which lawyer firm. ?  What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form. ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Samadysam

Smart parking ltd. DCB legal. Issued 2nd Dec 2025. I completed AOS today.

Samadysam

I’m getting an error saying Body is 9 characters too short. Hopefully this text is long enough?!

Gr1pr

OK, use the bespoke defence from the SMART PARKING DCB LEGAL group thread by sluzz

Samadysam

This is what I’ve drafted for para 3: 3. The allegation is over two years old. At the material time, the Defendant was caring for a one-year-old child and therefore has only limited recollection of the specific events. However, the date is notable as the Defendant recalls visiting the area with their husband and infant son for a walk to mark both their wedding anniversary and their child’s first birthday. On arrival, a funfair was taking place and overflow parking was directed to a field. Upon attempting to leave, the Defendant’s vehicle was obstructed by another car for a period of time, with a queue of traffic forming at the exit, resulting in an unavoidable delay. The Defendant cannot now recall who was driving the vehicle, though at that time it was usually not the Defendant. The Defendant believes an appeal may have been submitted but cannot state this with certainty due to the passage of time.

Gr1pr

Use the Smart Parking defence template,  not the one in announcements 

Samadysam

Okay, thank you 

Samadysam

I’m really sorry, but I’m struggling to find the template thread you’ve specified. Can you share a link please? 

Gr1pr

Samadysam said:

I’m really sorry, but I’m struggling to find the template thread you’ve specified. Can you share a link please? 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642762/smart-parking-claim-via-dcb-legal-group-info-thread/p1

Samadysam

Sorry for my ignorance, but I was expecting a completely different template. Is it simply that I use the main template and edit to include: 

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.