Smart Parking / DCB Legal claim – draft defence for review – defence due 8 June 2026

Phillibbs16

Hey - looking for some help on a claim I’ve received. Details below. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Summary

Claim form received from DCB Legal acting for Smart Parking Limited, issued 06/05/2026, claim number N6KF0F64. Alleged contravention 16/07/2022 at Tower Road Car Park, Newquay – insufficient paid time. Total claimed £309.28 (£170 PCN + £4.31 interest + £35 court fee + £50 legal costs).

I have already filed Acknowledgement of Service on 12/05/2026 ticking "defend all of this claim". Defence deadline is therefore 08/06/2026.

I have an unusual email trail from 2022 where Smart Parking acknowledged my appeal and confirmed in writing that all action was suspended pending adjudication, then went silent for 3 years 7 months until this claim arrived. Draft defence below for review please.

 

Particulars of Claim (verbatim from claim form)

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [REG REDACTED] at Tower Road Newquay.

2. The date of contravention is 16/07/2022 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant.

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms of the signs (the contract). Reason: Insufficient Paid Time.

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees.

 

Key facts

• I have a documented email trail from 2022 with Smart Parking directly.

• On 10/10/2022 I emailed info@smartparking.com appealing the PCN and attaching a RingGo VAT receipt showing I had paid £4.20 for a 2-hour session that day (12:34–14:34) at the same car park, for the same vehicle. Receipt reference SmarPaT-2022-07-16-02357.

• They asked for my new postal address on 11/10/2022; I gave it the same day.

• On 13/10/2022 they emailed: "liability has been transferred and the PCN has been reissued to the details provided accordingly".

• On 27/10/2022 they sent an "Appeal Acknowledgment" email confirming "all action has been suspended pending adjudication" and that they would respond within 35 days.

• They never responded again. No adjudication, no rejection, no IAS/POPLA code, no reissued PCN, no Letter Before Claim. Total silence for 3 years and 7 months until the Claim Form arrived.

• I never received the original PCN in 2022 (I had moved address). First I heard of it was a Debt Recovery Plus letter in early October 2022, which prompted the email exchange above.

 

Draft Defence

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No: N6KF0F64

BETWEEN: SMART PARKING LIMITED (Claimant) and [DEFENDANT] (Defendant)

 

DEFENCE

 

1.​The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim. It is admitted only that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. Save as expressly admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of each and every element of its case.

2.​The Particulars of Claim are sparse, vague and embarrassing. They fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 3 and 7, in that they do not set out the facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action. In particular, the Particulars fail to identify the alleged time of entry and exit, the precise contractual term alleged to have been breached, the wording of the relevant signage, or any proper breakdown of the £170 claimed as the "total of the PC and damages".

3.​The Defendant is unable to recall, on a balance of probabilities and at this remove in time, who was driving the vehicle on 16 July 2022, an unremarkable date almost four years prior to the issue of these proceedings. No evidence has been produced by the Claimant to identify the driver. There can be no "keeper liability" in this case for the reasons set out at paragraphs 4 to 6 below.

4.​Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim asserts, in the alternative, that the Defendant is pursued as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). That assertion is denied. The Claimant has not, and could not, demonstrate compliance with the strict mandatory conditions of Schedule 4, in particular paragraphs 8 and 9, which are required to transfer keeper liability. The Defendant has seen no Notice to Keeper meeting the requirements of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, and avers that no such compliant notice was ever issued.

5.​Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable. DCB Legal Ltd, acting for this Claimant, has filed a high volume of template bulk claims in 2025-2026, each repeating the same untrue assertion of POFA compliance. The solicitor signatory of the Statement of Truth on the Claim Form is therefore knowingly or negligently misleading the court and the Defendant by citing that legislation.

6.​Even if (which is denied) the Claimant could demonstrate POFA compliance, paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 limits any recovery against a keeper to "the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued". The £170 claimed, together with the further unspecified "damages" and pre-loaded interest, exceeds that statutory cap and is, on any view, unrecoverable from a keeper.

7.​Without prejudice to the above, payment for parking was in fact made on 16 July 2022 via the RingGo mobile payment system in respect of the same vehicle and the same car park (Tower Road Car Park, identifier 21511). A RingGo VAT receipt (SmarPaT-2022-07-16-02357) evidences payment via Apple Pay for a two-hour parking session 12:34–14:34 at a total cost of £4.20. Any shortfall was, at most, a matter of minutes attributable to congestion using the mobile payment system on a busy summer day in Newquay.

8.​Further and in any event, the Defendant relies on his own prior conduct in dealing properly and promptly with this matter, which the Claimant has wholly failed to address. On 10 October 2022 the Defendant emailed the Claimant at info@smartparking.com regarding PCN reference TC70306073, attaching the said RingGo VAT receipt and setting out the circumstances. On 11 October 2022 the Claimant responded requesting the Defendant's full postal address. The Defendant provided his updated postal address by reply the same day. On 13 October 2022 the Claimant emailed: "liability has been transferred and the PCN has been reissued to the details provided accordingly".

9.​On 27 October 2022 the Claimant sent the Defendant a formal Appeal Acknowledgment in respect of PCN TC70306073 which, in terms, stated that the appeal had been received, that "all action has been suspended pending adjudication" and that the Claimant would "endeavour to respond to your appeal within 35 days". The Claimant has at no point thereafter, and at no point in the intervening period of approximately three years and seven months, communicated any adjudication outcome, rejection of appeal, IAS appeal reference, reissued PCN, Letter Before Claim, or any other substantive response to the Defendant's appeal whatsoever. The next correspondence received by the Defendant in connection with PCN TC70306073 was the present Claim Form.

10.​In the premises, the Claimant is precluded from pursuing this claim by reason of: (a) its express written representation that all action was suspended pending an adjudication that never materialised, upon which the Defendant reasonably relied to his detriment; (b) breach of its own complaints and appeals procedure under the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice; (c) failure to issue any appeal rejection or independent appeals service (IAS) verification code as required by the relevant Code of Practice, thereby denying the Defendant his contractual and regulatory right of independent appeal; and (d) inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly four years in commencing proceedings, which is itself prejudicial and inequitable.

11.​The added sums of £70.00 (being the difference between the £100 contractual sum on the signage and the £170 claimed), and the claim to interest at 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, are denied. The £70.00 represents an attempt at double recovery of legal/administrative costs which are already separately claimed at £50.00 as "legal representative's costs" on the face of the Claim Form, and are not monies genuinely incurred by, or owed to, this Claimant. Section 69 confers a discretionary power on the court to award simple interest; it does not entitle a claimant to claim pre-loaded interest as of right on the inflated quantum from an unspecified date. The Defendant invites the court to disallow interest in any event having regard to the delay in bringing proceedings, which lies wholly with the Claimant and is itself materially prejudicial to the Defendant's ability to obtain documentary evidence and witness recollection.

12.​By reason of the matters set out above, the Defendant respectfully invites the court to dismiss the claim in its entirety. The Defendant seeks his fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14, and reserves the right to apply for a finding of unreasonable conduct against the Claimant and its solicitors and for further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5, on the basis that the bringing of this claim, on the facts known to the Claimant, constitutes unreasonable conduct within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g).

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: [Defendant]

Dated: [DATE]

 

Gr1pr

No need for the headers and footers if you submit it on MCOL as we recommend

Just use the Smart Parking defence template post on 12th April by member meltof, copy and paste into the defence box on MCOL, save and submit. ( no changes, no additions, no paperwork, no emails either )

Coupon-mad

Yep use the @Meltof defence in the Smart Parking Claim Defence Group thread (search and ye shall find).

The only change I would make to Meltof's defence Is to remove the line fairly near the start, that says the D "cannot recall anything on an unremarkable day x years ago" and replace it with:

The Defendant appealed the PC in 2022 because payment was made and no fair consideration period was allowed on arrival in addition to the grace period to drive out. A 'period of parking' is not the time between entry/exit images of moving/queueing traffic captured by a camera. Smart Parking acknowledged the appeal and confirmed in writing that all action was suspended pending adjudication, then went silent for 3 years 7 months until this claim arrived. 

Doiog

If you click on @meltof, you find nothing….30 mins so far in trying yo find this doc ;(

Nellymoser

@Doiog try clicking on Comments after you've clicked on @Meltof. You'll see all the posted comments Meltof has made. Look for the 12th April one. Once found click on the date or the thread title, this will take you to where that comment was posted and enable you to view it in full.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82017279#Comment_82017279

That's odd.

Like on any forum, the posting profile page of a username lists their 'comments' (all posts by them), in date order; and we told you which date.

Phillibbs16

thanks @Coupon-mad and @Gr1pr - much appreciated.

I have amended as per your instructions to the following. Is the below correct?

Thanks again

-Start-

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 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 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

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

3.​The Defendant appealed the PC in 2022 because payment was made and no fair consideration period was allowed on arrival in addition to the grace period to drive out. A 'period of parking' is not the time between entry/exit images of moving/queueing traffic captured by a camera. Smart Parking acknowledged the appeal and confirmed in writing that all action was suspended pending adjudication, then went silent for 3 years 7 months until this claim arrived. No evidence has been produced. There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case. Research has proved that this Claimant has never used the provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and they know, or should know, that they cannot hold registered keepers liable.

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

4.1.​The Defendant asks that, if this claim is not struck out for the various listed abuses, the allocating Judge may recognise this pattern as systemic wholly unreasonable conduct, and might issue special directions, stating that (in the event that this Claimant follows the usual course of abusing the court system then discontinuing to avoid hearings) the Defendant's costs be payable by the Claimant on the indemnity basis, without need for an application.

5.​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.

6.​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).

7.​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 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 the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and (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 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 minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

9.​The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called 'extorting money from motorists'. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of 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: 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

11.​The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

-End-

Gr1pr

Your paragraph 3 should be the 4 lines given to you by coupon mad on 16th May

The rest of the paragraphs are to be unchanged

Delete the Statement of Truth at the bottom, not needed on MCOL because you will be ticking the boxes

1505grandad

I am confused by the following stated in the op (as you are claiming "There can be no 'keeper liability' in this case." and defending as RK only) :-

"Key facts

• I have a documented email trail from 2022 with Smart Parking directly.

• On 10/10/2022 I emailed info@smartparking.com appealing the PCN and attaching a RingGo VAT receipt showing I had paid £4.20 for a 2-hour session that day (12:34–14:34) at the same car park, for the same vehicle. Receipt reference SmarPaT-2022-07-16-02357.

• They asked for my new postal address on 11/10/2022; I gave it the same day.

• On 13/10/2022 they emailed: "liability has been transferred and the PCN has been reissued to the details provided accordingly"."

Coupon-mad

Good spot.

The driver ruined the POFA defence by wasting an appeal pretty much admitting to driving. That was silly and the OP cannot use the Meltof defence version.

Use the template defence and pleeeease stop adding a statement of truth. If it was needed, it would be in the Template!

Phillibbs16

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the help. If only I had found this forum in the first place!

Final draft to be submitted asap - would appreciate one final check if that’s ok?

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 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 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

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

3.​The Defendant appealed the PC in 2022 because payment was made and no fair consideration period was allowed on arrival in addition to the grace period to drive out. A 'period of parking' is not the time between entry/exit images of moving/queueing traffic captured by a camera. Smart Parking acknowledged the appeal and confirmed in writing that all action was suspended pending adjudication, then went silent for 3 years 7 months until this claim arrived.

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 Beavis.

7.​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 the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and (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 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 minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8.​The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called 'extorting money from motorists'. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10.​The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.