LBC - Should Keeper name driver in this case?

wibble73

Hi,

Bit of advice please. My wife as RK received 2 Parking CNs from Smartparking for two separate overstays in the same carpark back in 2024 during our family holiday in England. For one PCN, she appealed, the appeal failed, she paid up the £60.

Unfortunately, she didn't realise she had received a second PCN from the same carpark during the same week, wrongly assuming they were one in the same. When she was receiving DCB Claims notices, she ignored them thinking she'd already paid the charge.

Now she has received a Letter before Claim from DCBLegal which I have sellotaped back together as she was just about to bin this too.

In checking this out for her I went onto Smartparking's website which was when I noticed the fact there were two PCNs, one paid, one not. The unpaid one for what appears to be an overstay of about 45mins.

Checking out the photo evidence I notice in the wingmirror it wasn't her driving but yours truly.

Quite how a 45 mins overstay was achieved I'm not sure, but with two pesky kids in tow….

She hasn't the headspace for challenging the claim at the moment, but I don't want her/us paying the £170, it seems unreasonable.

Is this a case where I should get her to email DCB to name the driver (as per example template)…?

Would the original PCN then come to me for the original amount £60, or the inflated £170?

I'm reasonably ok with stumping up for the £60 for a 45min overstay - my bad, but balk at the £170. I will in any case complain to the landowner and the local council and see if I can get it cancelled via that route.

Advice much appreciated. Thank you

 

Gr1pr

Plan A should definitely be attempted ( but its nothing to do with the council. )

I assume that you are both in England and Wales. ? Not in Scotland. ?

It would be extremely easy for her to defend as a non driving keeper, no keeper liability, which would eventually end with DCB LEGAL discontinuing before the hearing fee is due

So just a bit of admin, easy peasy

So i suggest that you do the work, helping her through the admin with our help , at the correct times

No paying, no naming the driver either ( no naming, no inferring. )

She has no legal liability as RK, so nothing to worry about , nothing to pay !, Should not have paid the 1st one

Coupon-mad

I am so sad she paid one! 😟

You don't pay private parking invoices all the time the rogue sector remains unregulated, so don't compound that error by throwing more money away at what MPs have called 'an outrageous scam' operation.

Obviously if you stay in NI or Scotland (or another country?) you can and should ignore private parking firms anyway.

The council has nothing to do with it.

I am amazed you seem keen to pay it. These aren't fines and everyone here with a Smart Parking invoice pays nothing.

wibble73

That's great, thankyou for the reply and encouragement, it can feel a little trepidatious I guess is why there is an inclination to payment.

Yes, England/Wales dwellers, we don't live in Scotland.

Spoken with wife and she is happy for me to take on the admin on her behalf.

Plan A - email of complaint to landowner sent today.

I think next step (within 30day window from date of LoC, 26th Feb) is an emailed reply using template from Post 2 directly to DCB Legal (not using DCB's online form as requested by them) stating address, disputing claim, stating not the driver and thus not liable.

Then, await response, likely claim and take it from there?

Pls let me know if I've missed anything.

Thanks again.

PS: I mentioned the council as the carpark used was at a nature reserve run by a trust who had recently installed ANPR, from a google search this had seemingly drawn the ire of locals and there was some correspondence in local council meeting minutes referencing. I thought putting the council on the cc of a letter of complaint to the Landowner (I assume is the trust) may hold some sway. Or not… 

Coupon-mad

"stating not the driver and thus not liable".

Yep and she could go further and even threaten a Counterclaim for data abuse and harassment of the wrong debtor, if she now adds 'the driver was my husband' (which I would recommend she adds) and she should also add that she will counterclaim if they proceed to sue her now, despite knowing:

• she wasn't driving;
• the driver was male;
• she has opted not to name him, which is a keeper's prerogative;
• there is no basis in law to rely upon a bare presumption that a keeper was driving on private land, especially not when informed otherwise at pre-action stage;
• Under the data protection principles in the UK and under DVLA KADOE rules, keeper data can only be used for the sole purpose for which it was released, which in this case, was to only allow Smart Parking to 'enquire' of the keeper as to the identity of the driver (and no more than that);
• Smart Parking never used the POFA (the only legal right to keeper liability) until 2025 and they and DCB Legal are well aware of that fact and should know that there is no cause of action against the keeper and no reason to continue to pursue her for a 2024 non-PoFA notice.

wibble73

Thanks so much for your comments. Get the feeling you may have done this a few times.
Your time is much appreciated.

I have re-drafted a response to the LoC incorporating your advice and the bullet points into the Post 2 template
and will give to my wife to forward directly to DCB Legal, and await….

Will keep you posted.

Thanks again.

wibble73

Hi,

An update. I thought they might reconsider but…. My wife has now received a Claim Form from county court (issue date23/4). I have helped her acknowledge service online and now look to help her submit a defence. I have found a non-driver defence on the forums posted by Shabib02 but notice the template defence wording has changed since, so will use the updated version. Aiming to keep para 3 fairly short and sweet and referencing the POC as follows.

3. With reference to the POC. Paragraph 1 is denied, the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied, no PC was issued on 02/08/2024 as implied. Paragraph 3 is denied, whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle.  Paragraph 4 is denied, the Defendant believes the PC issued was non-POFA.

Can't find original PCN received, but from what has been said previously am I safe in stating my belief that the PC was non POFA given Smart Parking never having used it pre2025? Anything else worth adding?

Many thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

Just use the defence by @Meltof in the Smart Parking Claim Defence Group Thread.

It's based on the template defence but bespoke for Smart cases. Job done!

No words to add to it, except she can say that she wasn't driving at the start, if that's the case. I can't recall.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 23/04/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 26/05/26

Umkomaas

Keep following guidance for Smart/DCB Legal cases, and you’ll end up included in the following thread in a few months time. Like shelling peas!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations

Gr1pr

As Coupon-mad said, dont use a 14 month old defence like shahib from 2025, they have not used the word ISSUED for 12 months !

Add but not the driver to paragraph 2 using the rest of the template defence by meltof posted on 12th April 2026