Help and Advice Needed with Smart Parking PCN

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 19/04/26 and before or on 03/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 18/05/26

XUD1

Hi All

As previously stated I have submitted the AOS and am almost (I think) ready to post the defence posted on the 12th April as suggested. I have ready many threads trying to understand more the process including about what to say on the mediation phone call etc.

For clarification do I have to amend the published 12th April thread to suit my case or just post it verbatim?

In my first post I said I had done nothing by way of replying or acknoweldging any letters except to respond to Claim by AOS.

I did pay a fee 100% but think we keyed the reg number in incorrectly, does this need including in the defence?

In order to try and get myself more understanding, I have, as said read lots of different posts and threads, some of which are obviously outdated) but I want to be sure I am doing everything I can as correctly as I can, I am wary of taking too much time up of those who have very kindly responded to my post.

On one of my first visits to the forum I found a page with lots and lots of posts about successful appeals but alas I did not bookmark this correctly and I hate asking but can someone point me in the right direction please?

As previously I am very grateful for the time given by others.

Kindly

Gr1pr

Just copy and paste the 11 paragraphs by meltof on 12th April into the defence box on MCOL save, submit, job done

No changes, no additions, just copy and paste

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

You are NOT appealing, too late for those

Mediation is simple, but explained in the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum, those 8 steps are what you should be studying

Hello, no offer thank you, goodbye

Is one option at mediation

OR LIKE THIS ONE BELOW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627332/smart-parking-dcbl-claim-form-insufficient-paid-time

XUD1

Hi All.

Due to an unexpected admission to hospital (I am home now) I have not submitted the defence but I am doing this today. I am using the meltof template dated 12th April. Do I have to alter anything at all in that as I read on another thread that the amounts should state what my total claim amount is. Is this what I have to do, or am I just to simply copy the meltof one and send as is. I am aware I have been told to just use this but the other thing I read has confused me.

"

Then use the wording in the template for your defence and save the recollection stories for any possible future Witness Statement, because you may have to provide a WS in several months time, but they are more likely to discontinue before the hearing fee deadline for payment, negating the need for a WS

Ensure that the sum in your defence matches the pcn plus debt recovery figure added together"

1. The Claimant's sparse caselacks 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 ofaction'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages tothe original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable andconstitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct underCPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costsof enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLAlook-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads ofcost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed.Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges tointervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powersunder CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for thesum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with theClaimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highlyprejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set outbelow and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been drivingon 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 thisClaimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and theyknow, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

4.   The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth isknowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law.Further, this claim includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loadedinterest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary powerto award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on thewhole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sumclaimed, unjustly enriching them or DCB Legal in bulk, on every undefendedclaim. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. TheClaimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC.

4.1.  The Defendant asks that, if this claim is notstruck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognisethis pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue specialdirections, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usualcourse of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid hearings) theDefendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, withoutneed for an application.

5. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breachedbut to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuableconsideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71)mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominenceof terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14& 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, theDefendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices.On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant isput to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

6. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of priorwritten landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof oftheir standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowneragreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the siteboundary 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) astrong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii)'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). Noneof 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 isfully distinguished from Beavis.

8. Attention is drawn to: (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis(an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with thelandowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgmentby HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of theoperation', and (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the onlyparking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428(his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC(already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minorcost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note thatHHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

9. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct byoperators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a PublicConsultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which therelevant 2022 Minister called 'extorting money from motorists'. Both theprevious and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicativeof firms having too much control '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: seeExplanatory 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 stoodwhen the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeperliability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'doublerecovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

11. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding ofunreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up athird of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJsof all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases beforehearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse andmakes 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 caseallocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance althoughit might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behavedunreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Don't mean to be causing frustration to anyone, I just need to know I am following correctly what I should do and not making things overly complicated.

Kindly

Coupon-mad

Yes put that in now and submit it today.

XUD1

Defense submitted. Thanks all. I will keep you updated.

Appreciated

XUD1

I have had a response to my defense to MCOL from DCBL.

Good Morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a
directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a
copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in
achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle
this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us
on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate
reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend
to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in
pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any
limitations to this (for example, the format in which
documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may
be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Attached is a N180 Directions questionnaire which they confirm has been submitted?

Thanks in anticipation of any advice offered.

XUD1

Coupon-mad

Yep but the 8 steps says we don't need to see that template reply otherwise we'd be shown it in ten threads every day! No ta!

Read the 8 steps. We'll see you well after mediation.

XUD1

Apologies and thanks.

XUD1

Hi Again.

I have now had the N149A and an attached N180 which has been completed. I understand that this needs to be emailed to all parties.

Am I correct that in our case this needs to be emailed to the following recipients?

info@dcblegal.co.uk

uk@smartparking.com and also to CNBC at Claimresponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Thanks in anticipation.