Smart parking/DCB legal court claim

b706

hello, first time posting but have been researching this website almost daily to make sure I am correct with what I am doing. brief explanation of what has happened and where I am at below. 

May 2022
parked and paid for parking in cash at the on-site payment machine, due to difficulties with the mobile/online payment system. A valid ticket was purchased and displayed in the vehicle. No breach of parking terms occurred.

June 2022
Received a Parking Charge Notice  from Smart Parking Ltd alleging non-payment.
Emailed Smart Parking Ltd disputing the PCN, explaining that payment had been made in cash and that a ticket was displayed.
Smart Parking Ltd responded, stating that appeals could not be accepted by email and instructed me to submit a formal appeal via their website or by post.
I submitted a formal appeal via Smart Parking Ltd’s website, in accordance with their instructions.
Smart Parking Ltd confirmed receipt of the appeal and stating that all action on the PCN was suspended pending adjudication. No timescale beyond 35 days was provided.
No appeal outcome was received from Smart Parking Ltd. 

August 2022
After receiving escalating payment demands, I emailed Smart Parking Ltd again, reiterating that payment had been made in cash and requesting cancellation of the charge.
Smart Parking Ltd responded stating that, due to the length of time the PCN had been open, the matter had been referred to a debt recovery company (Debt Recovery Plus) and told me to contact them. I did not contact them and received no communication from debt recovery plus so believed the matter had concluded.

August 2025 - Three years after last correspondence from anyone regarding this matter.
I received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal Ltd, acting for Smart Parking Ltd, demanding £170 in relation to the PCN.
I responded to DCB Legal Ltd disputing the debt in full, confirming that payment had been made, and formally requesting documents and evidence under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

October 2025
DCB Legal Ltd responded, providing only ANPR images of the vehicle entering and exiting the site and stating that further documents were considered disproportionate.
I replied, noting continued non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol and reiterating the dispute and request for disclosure of key documents.
DCB Legal Ltd maintained their position, asserted the £70 “debt recovery” add-on, and threatened proceedings without providing the requested documents.

5th December 2025
A County Court Claim Form was issued.
I filed an Acknowledgment of Service within the required timeframe and filed a full Defence denying liability for the claim on the MCOL website which is logged as received on 11/12/2025 

All of the above happened before I found this forum. I have since read the newbie threads and so on. 

DCB legal sent email on the 6th of January stating they had reviewed my defence and their client intends to proceed with claim. They attached their direct questionnaire to the email. I have not done anything else because I was waiting for my MCOL status to update with the direct questionnaire. Nothing has updated yet and I have not received the DQ in the post yet either. I am probably being silly but now I am worried I have missed a step and should have sent the DQ back before now. 

Am I being silly does it usually take this long? Any advice/reassurance is welcome (please be kind this is my first rodeo and not completely sure what I am doing)

Thank you for your time. 

Gr1pr

Yes it can take weeks or a couple of months,  so keep checking your MCOL claim history to see when its posted

Then download the N180 pdf document,  fill it in and email it to the DQ email address at the CNBC in Northampton 

No steps were missed, your case is on track,  but these cases are subject to delays 

They will discontinue in summer or autumn this year , so chill, but keep following the 8 steps 

1505grandad

"I submitted a formal appeal via Smart Parking Ltd’s website,.............."

Just checking  -  was the driver outed in the appeal?

b706

Thank you. I will try and chill 

Coupon-mad

b706 said:

Thank you. I will try and chill 

Was the driver outed when you appealed?

Did you admit to driving in the defence?

b706

1505grandad said:

"I submitted a formal appeal via Smart Parking Ltd’s website,.............."

Just checking  -  was the driver outed in the appeal?

Coupon-mad said:

b706 said:

Thank you. I will try and chill 

Was the driver outed when you appealed?

Did you admit to driving in the defence?

the driver was never named not sure if this is a problem? but the car was registered to myself. all that has been admitted is that the parking was paid for in full. have I messed that up? 

Coupon-mad

Nope but show us your defence you recently put in (verbatim please) so we know exactly how you defended this claim.

b706

Coupon-mad said:

Nope but show us your defence you recently put in (verbatim please) so we know exactly how you defended this claim.

Again this was all done before finding this forum (please be kind) I have removed only personal details that could identify me and where the parking took place from section 1, amount paid and actual dates throughout. 

1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sum

claimed.

The Defendant denies any breach of terms and denies that any sum

is payable. The Defendant made full payment for parking on May

2022 using cash at the machine on site, displayed the ticket, and

complied with all requirements.

2. Payment was made – Smart Parking’s allegation of non-payment is

unfounded.

The Defendant paid approximately £ in cash at the machine

provided, witnessed a queue of multiple motorists who were also

paying cash due to problems with the phone/app system, and

displayed the ticket in the vehicle.

The Claimant has provided no evidence whatsoever that payment was

not made. ANPR entry/exit photographs are not evidence of

non-payment.

3. Smart Parking failed to follow its own appeals process and

caused procedural prejudice.

The Defendant appealed in June 2022 exactly as Smart Parking

directed. Smart Parking acknowledged receipt of the appeal 

June 2022 and confirmed the charge was suspended pending

adjudication.

Smart Parking never issued a decision, never responded further,

and then went silent for more than three years before resurrecting

the matter via DCB Legal in 2025.

Had Smart Parking processed the appeal within the BPA-required

timeframe, the Defendant would still have retained the paper

ticket. The Claimant’s excessive and unexplained delay has

directly caused prejudice, including loss of evidence.

4. Three-year delay is unreasonable, contrary to the BPA Code, and

contrary to the Overriding Objective.

Private parking charges are normally pursued promptly. A delay of

over three years before a formal Letter of Claim is unreasonable

and causes severe prejudice to the Defendant’s ability to defend.

5. The Claimant and its legal representatives failed to comply

with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Despite repeated written requests, the Claimant and DCB Legal

failed to supply:

copies of all notices and correspondence allegedly sent;

evidence of landowner authority;

a breakdown of the sum claimed;

a copy of the contract/signage terms relied upon;

any evidence that no payment was made.

The Claimant therefore failed to comply with PAPDC paragraphs 2.1

and 3.1. Litigation has been commenced without providing basic

documents required to understand or evaluate the claim.

6. No evidence of landowner authority.

The Claimant has produced no documentary evidence that it had

authority from the landowner to issue or enforce parking charges

7. The added £70 “debt recovery” fee is an abuse of process and

must be struck out.

The claim includes an additional £70, described variously as

“contractual costs” or “debt recovery fees”.

This is unrecoverable and has been repeatedly disallowed by the

courts including:

ParkingEye v Somerfield (2011);

HHJ Jackson’s rulings in Southampton (2019) striking out added

“debt recovery” sums as an abuse;

The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis confirmed the parking

charge itself already covers operational costs and no further

add-ons are permissible.

This claim is therefore inflated beyond the maximum recoverable

amount and is an abuse of process.

8. The Claimant’s evidence is wholly inadequate.

The only documents ever supplied were ANPR entry/exit images.

These do not demonstrate non-payment, nor any breach of contract,

nor the terms allegedly breached.

No signage map, signage photos, payment machine logs, transaction

records, or contract documents have been produced.

9. The Defendant acted in good faith throughout.

The Defendant promptly corresponded, appealed, and attempted

repeatedly to resolve the matter.

The Claimant’s failures to respond and prolonged silence created

the situation that now exists.

10. The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim because:

payment was made;

no breach occurred;

the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof;

the claim is exaggerated by unlawful costs;

pre-action rules were not followed;

unreasonable delay has caused prejudice;

the claim is not supported by evidence.

Coupon-mad

That's good!

All is there except you should not have implied you were the motorist (which that does) and you had an absolute defence against keeper liability. It was not a POFA notice. So that point was missed but the rest is all stated.

This will run the usual inevitable course. The claim will end up discontinued before the hearing this year. Just play the game:

Follow the easy 8 steps covered in the Template Defence sticky thread. No link is needed to that Announcement, or to the NEWBIES FAQS thread - which you must also read post 2 of, especially the red heading IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

It's very easy but defence isn't the only task.

See my signature below if you need a steer about how to hop straight to page one. This could not be easier once you bookmark the Template Defence thread to follow the 8 steps.

We don't want to know about DCB Legal's reply to your defence, nor the DQ, nor questions about Mediation (all are covered).

What we do collect are pictures of the Notices of Discontinuance for Umkomaas' thread, so we'll see you again in the Summer/Autumn when you strut proudly back here with your win!

b706

Just wanted to update with timeline of recent events so others can see what current waiting times are like and may be helpful if anyone like me previously worried about how long things were taking.

January 26th MCOL updated to 'DQ sent to you'.

I completed and sent off the next day (to CNBC and info@dcblegal) and received automated responses from both.

February 4th received paper copy of the DQ.

February 17th MCOL updated to show DQ had been filed.

February 18th received email for mediation call for April.

b706

Update following mediation call.

Straight away they offered £200 original is £300.

I said £10 without admitting fault.

They came back with £135.

I said £10 without admitting fault.

They came back with £60.

I rejected and said no more than £10 without admitting fault, they rejected so the call ended.

The mediator advised it would now be sent to my local court and time lines for this are between 6-9 months! she did say it could be sooner but most likely between 6-9 months. complete madness these things are allowed to go on for this long but here we are, I will continue to play the game and will update along the way for others to see how long the process actually is.