County Court Claim Form from Smart parking Limited

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: 'Template' defence suggestion - NB: ultimately, your choice of defence wording is your own.

AVash15

Hi all,

I’m hoping someone can help me with preparing a defense for a County Court Claim Form I've recently received from Smart parking Limited regarding a parking charge.
I’ve read through the forum guidance and some of the templates, and have prepared a draft Defence.

Details so far:

• I have received an official Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
• Issue date on the claim: 22 Dec 25
• The claim is from Smart Parking Limited, via DCB Legal Ltd.
• The alleged parking incident relates to insufficient paid time at Milton Ketenes Central Train Station.
• I have already submitted my AOS via MCOL and the portal now states 

• • A claim was issued against you on 22/12/2025
• • Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 31/12/2025 
• • Your acknowledgment of service was received on 02/01/2026 

(Image removed by Forum Team)

I have now drafted my defense (below) and would really appreciate guidance on:

1. Have I correctly structured my defense.
2. Any suggestions mainly on para 3 (as rest as straight from new template)

Thank you so much in advance for any support. This is first time for me, thus want to make sure I handle it correctly.

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 and driver.

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. On the date mentioned in Para 2, at Milton Keynes Railway station Defendant parked his Car in morning hurry to catch a train, and paid using Ringo App, selecting the code which was picked up by this app. The parking lanes at this point are owned by multiple agencies with their different codes, all served by common App (something not known to Defendant at the time of instance). Thus, it turns out that the payment made by defendant was received by another parking company. In his appeal defendant had asked Smart parking with invoice of Ringo, to prove that full amount was paid. If anything, Smart Parking should settle the amount with the adjacent parking owner (Milton Keynes Council) who received the payment. But this appeal was turned down. Given the passage of time, it is impossible for defendant to provide a full response to highlight the prevailing confusion at parking lanes at that time. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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))'

Le_Kirk

Just read and use the defence from the Smart Parking Group thread: -

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

AVash15

Thank you @Le_Kirk I will use the template answer and as I understand I do not need to provide specific answers in para 3 for now in my defence. 

Gr1pr

Just login to MCOL and complete the AOS online if not done already 

Use that bespoke template defence as is

Car1980

I wouldn't mention any of what you said in P3, especially that you were in a hurry. Sounds like you're admitting everything. Just say this:

On the date mentioned in Para 2, at Milton Keynes Railway station the Defendant parked their car and paid using the app. It is denied any alleged contractual breach occurred and the claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £170, and no loss or damages were incurred.

AVash15

hi I received a notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, I also missed to respondForm N180 as last date to respond was yesterday. does it affect my case and how should I prepare for next steps.

Gr1pr

If the N180 DQ document date expiry was yesterday, download the N180 DQ pdf document from the government website and fill it in and email it to the DQ email address ASAP today

Study the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Then study the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements too

Coupon-mad

A late N180 is fine but don't use nor scan the paper version. Download then email. The 8 steps tell you how to answer every question.