Smart parking/DCB Legal Ltd Claim form help

Scarasurous

Hello,

I’m so sorry to be a little pest but im quite dumb as fudge I’ve spent ages looking up and down these threads to help fill out my defence part on the MCOL site I’ve done the AOS part, but the defence part im like Jesus where do I begin.
All new to this (sorrry)

Short story: my parking fine was back on 03.12.2023 at a hotel going to a Christmas fayre, I had no idea and there was no signage to register the vehicle at the hotel, I had a screaming small child with me and I was at the hotel for just over an hour. I’ve obviously ignored all the private parking tickets and threats now they sent me the HM Courts & Tribunal service Claim form. I just feel riddled of anxiety and just consumed by all this.
I know there’s templates on here, but they have paragraphs missing and I just want to get this all right and sorted but just confused with all the threads etc im sorry to be dumb or to cause annoyance/stress.
I obviously want this claim to be discontinued and im sick of these private parking companies rinsing money from normal everyday people.
In the words of Micheal Jackson … “Beat it” and course I want to.

Please, please, please, can I have any guidance, support, help, advice, template links, or just the general template shown or sent to me… would make my freaking week whole heartedly.

Many thanks xo

Gr1pr

Calm Down. ! Follow our advice, you are correct in posting your own thread

Definitely wasn't a fine, bin that word, because it was a speculative invoice

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Most or All of your defence is pre written by user meltof on 12th April, so have a look at it and see if it is correct or if it needs tweaking to suit your own case

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form? Can you show us the POC please? As it is Smart Parking just use the defence template in the Smart Group thread: -

Smart Group Thread

Use the version posted on by @Meltof on 12 April 2026

Scarasurous

Thank youuuu for the replies <3

I didnt come across @Meltof thread till now so thanks!

Pics as follows…

[Images removed by Forum Team]

Jame4ters

You’ve left your registration and claim numbers showing

Gr1pr

The First picture is unredacted so I will report it for deletion, the reference number is on show

Issue date is 14th May , for unauthorised parking

Use the meltof template dated 12th April, in the thread by sluzz

Scarasurous

Arrrrh sugar… apologies for the dopeyness I should of blacked them out 😳

((This one… alll okayyy?))

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 is unable to recall who may have been driving on 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 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))'.

Coupon-mad

Yes.

Then follow the easy 8 steps in the Template Defence thread and please DON'T show us DCB Legal's email reply.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 19/05/26 and before or on 02/06/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 16/06/26

Scarasurous

Hi, I don’t really know or understand what to do next, I’ve received a questionnaire from Hm courts and Revenue now to be filled out by 10th July. Part of me is like i just CBA and just give them what they want. DCB legal offered £200 to settle.

Gr1pr

Sounds to me like you have received the N180 DQ document from the CNBC. ? ( nothing to do with the Inland Revenue. )

You need to understand the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum and follow them