DCB Legal ltd LoC (Smart Parking )

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: DCB Legal ltd LoC (Smart Parking ) Angouleme way.

Joyrul35

Hi All,

I need some help finalising my defence. Is this a wining defence? Please help!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim Number: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]
Between:
Smart Parking Ltd (Claimant)
and
[DEFENDANT NAME] (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
2. The Claim relates to an alleged parking charge issued at Cannon Workshops, London on 03/08/2024.

No Contract Formed – Forbidding Signage

1. The Defendant avers that no contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant.
2. The signage at the location clearly states “Permit Holders Only”. This wording is prohibitive and does not constitute an offer capable of acceptance by a driver without a permit.
3. As such, the signage does not create a contractual relationship. At most, it attempts to prohibit parking rather than offer it on terms.
4. In such circumstances, the only possible cause of action would be trespass. The Claimant is not the landowner and has not demonstrated any proprietary interest in the land. The Claimant therefore lacks standing to pursue damages for trespass.

Unclear and Inadequate Terms

1. The signage fails to clearly communicate any contractual terms.
2. In particular, there is no visible instruction requiring the entry of a vehicle registration number, nor any explanation of how a driver could comply with the alleged terms.
3. The signage instead relies on vague wording directing drivers to “see terms and conditions on signage throughout the car park”, which is insufficient to form a contract at the point of entry.
4. This fails to meet the requirement for clear and prominent signage under the relevant Code of Practice .

Inadequate Notice of Parking Charge

1. The alleged £100 parking charge is not prominently displayed in a manner capable of forming a contractual term.
2. Any reference to a charge is secondary and not sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver at the time of parking.

Legitimate Use – Delivery Activity

1. The vehicle was present for a short duration solely for the purpose of collecting a delivery.
2. This constitutes loading/unloading activity, which includes the time taken to collect goods and complete associated tasks .
3. The duration of stay was reasonable and consistent with this purpose.

Failure to Provide Consideration Period

1. The driver was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand any terms before enforcement action was taken.
2. Industry standards require a consideration period for drivers to review terms prior to entering into any parking contract .

No Keeper Liability

1. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant is liable as driver, or alternatively as keeper.
2. The Defendant denies being the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity.
3. To pursue the keeper, the Claimant must fully comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
4. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate such compliance and is therefore unable to transfer liability to the keeper.

Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim

1. The Claim includes an additional sum, increasing the total to £170.
2. This constitutes an attempt at double recovery and is not recoverable.
3. The Court is invited to strike out the additional sum as an abuse of process.

Conclusion

1. The Defendant respectfully submits that:

• No contract was formed due to forbidding signage
• The terms were unclear and inadequately communicated
• The Claimant lacks standing to pursue trespass
• The vehicle was engaged in legitimate delivery activity
• Keeper liability has not been established
• The claim is inflated and unreasonable

1. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed: _______________________
Name: [DEFENDANT NAME]
Date: [DATE]

—

Gr1pr

Nope, incorrect statement of truth and not the current defence template

Use the Smart Parking bespoke defence template in the group thread by member sluzz, using the post by member meltof on 12th April, changing the sum claimed from £135 to £170

Joyrul35

Thanks for the feedback - Can you kindly send me the link for the thread as I am struggling to find it.

Thanks once again!

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81988308#Comment_81988308

Here it is below

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6642762/smart-parking-claim-via-dcb-legal-group-info-thread/p3

MSE_Stephen

@Joyrul35 We've split this to a new thread for you.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 31/03/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 05/04/26 and before or on 19/04/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 05/05/26

That was yesterday; did you submit a defence via MCOL?

Coupon-mad

Put the Smart Parking defence by @Meltof in NOW if not already in.

Joyrul35

I think I have made a booboo of the defence due date.

I submitted the Acknowledgment of Service on 13 April 2026, on the understanding that I then had 28 days to file my defence. This led me to believe that my deadline is 11 May 2026.

Stressed out! What are my options now?

Gr1pr

Submit your defence ASAP

The defence due date is 28 days after the Service date,, or 33 days after the issue date, its never 28 days from the AOS date unless its submitted on day 5 !

You are in a race to beat them to the puch and currently 26 hours late !

Coupon-mad

Errm…. why aren't you telling us you've just done it?

My reply above (posted a day after the deadline to hurry you up) made it pretty clear 'DO IT NOW!' that you can do always put a defence in late (as long as MCOL lets you) so why are you chatting to us right now?!