DCB Legal Court Claim - N1

MonsterBooks2312

hi everyone - I would really appreciate your help with this. I have paid for parking here however as I was late leaving due to traffic smart parking limited issued me with a PCN. I ignore their request to pay until I receive “letter before court” which I responded to and now received this court letter.

Could someone please help as I am not sure how to defend this or if it’s best to just pay? Many thanks

Gr1pr

Defend It, simple, no paying a penny

Follow the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum

Complete the AOS online stage ASAP on MCOL, then use the 12th April defence template post by member meltof in the defence box on MCOL, copy and paste, save and submit

MonsterBooks2312

Thank you so much @ Gr1pr. Could you please help me with the link to the 12 April defence template as I can’t seem to locate it.

MonsterBooks2312

Could someone please check the below and confirm if it’s ok to submit or if I should change something.

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". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 3. Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.
3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."
   3.1 The Defendant notes that the Claimant’s particulars refer to “insufficient paid time” but no evidence has been supplied showing the actual parking duration, the amount paid, the tariff applicable, or how any alleged shortfall occurred.
4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).
5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye vBeavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished.Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.
6. On 11th July2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.
7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and
   (6) state at para 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)).’’
8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed). 9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable

MonsterBooks2312

sorry, just to add, I have submitted my AOS today

Gr1pr

Thats not the 11 paragraph meltof defence from 12th April !

Do not use that Chan and Akande defence above

Coupon-mad

There is a current tsunami of Smart Parking claims. So much so, that I now have copy & paste advice ready:

just click on the username @Meltof

Copy their version of a Smart Parking final defence posted on April 12th. 

Don't copy & paste it here as we really don't want to keep being asked to check this defence in thread after thread in May, which is driving us regulars a bit mad with this current Smart Parking batch!

Literally read any Smart thread…

Then follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread. It'll be discontinued just before the hearing fee falls due in the Autumn/Winter.

MonsterBooks2312

Thank you so much for your help. The link is really helpful and I will use the Meltof defence from 12 April and submit that.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 15/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/06/26

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82005462#Comment_82005462

Did you get the defence in? Easy stuff!