DCB LEGAL, SMART PARKING court claim, defended

notrightnow

Hi everyone

I recently beat a dcbl case and have now received more court documents for a bogus case that was charged to me 4 YEARS ago. It was basically due to me only paying the default amount and not adding extra time though it did not say this anywhere. I have since been back to the car park numerous times, and the machines payment system and signage have completely changed, i assume due to people having the same problem as myself

The fist paperwork I received was when I received a payment notice for £170 from a debt collection agency rather than any photographic evidence that I had done anything wrong. I rang them up to say that I hadn't done anything wrong and and had paid for a ticket, but they said that I'd have to go to court in Wolverhampton to contest it (I live miles away from Wolverhampton, as was the firm in question and where the car park was so don't know why they would say that?)

I have done this before so have got as far as my defence, so is anyone able to check that it is sufficient to send to the court?

I have only included item 2 & 3 from the template defence, but please let me know if you want to see more

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest  belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse  statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7,  and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of  action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty  what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to  respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was  the registered keeper. 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 25/07/2022" (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations." 

3.1 No photographic evidence was ever provided to me at my address, just hostile letters demanding £170 without any proof. - No 14 grace period?

3.2 Improper Procedure followed:  When I rang the company that had sent me the letter to question the fine, I was told that I would have to pay or have to go to Wolverhampton Court to defend the claim.  I now know this to be false, and probably a scare tactic to encourage me not to defend the claim.

3.3 Length of times since incident: The claim is 4 years old when old payment systems were used, with no signs explaining the payment system and had a default £2 listed (which I paid).  After googling this, there are plenty of other people who fell victim to this same car park and its (intentionally?) ambiguous signage

3.4 Confusing signage: The ticket machine I used said £2 (which I paid) with no explanation stating that more money was needed to stay longer than an hour.  The signs and payment systems have now been completely changed, I assume in tacit agreement that the previous signage and system were not fit for purpose.

I have included the court details to so that you know what is been said.

Thanks again :)

20260529_100355.jpg

Le_Kirk

Why do you call it a bogus case?

With an issue date of 06/05/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 25/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 08/06/26

Some of your defence is written in the first person and some in third (correct) but you should just be using Smart parking Group Thread defence version posted by @Meltof on 12 April 2026

Gr1pr

Definitely Not dcbl, its a Smart Parking via DCB Legal Money Claim from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL , issue date 6th May, Insufficient paid time

Currently there is no court involved, just the CNBC in Northampton

Bin that draft defence above and use the 11 paragraph defence template posted by mse member @Meltof on 12th April instead, no changes, no additions

The case will eventually end up with your local civil court, wherever that is

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like

DCB LEGAL, SMART PARKING court claim, defended

notrightnow

Oh ok. Looks like a slightly different way of doing it than I did previously

@Gr1pr - Sorry! I always get these mixed up - You're right obviously. Title amended as requested

@Le_Kirk - Ok thanks. I have viewed the thread and hope I have done this right

I assume this is the reply I send? And via MCOL instead of the full template defence sent to the court like I did before?

I have not altered anything that differentiates my defence from any other case. Is this correct as there people on the other thread were adding other details, but couldn't see where I would need to add my own?

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))'.

Gr1pr

Thats the correct template, and generally we dont advise adding anything else, unless its extremely important, plus it has to fit inside the 122 lines on MCOL, where you save it and submit it ( no paperwork, no emails, no sending anything at all. ) MCOL only

Any extras would start off as a paragraph 3,1 , then renumber to 12 paragraphs when complete, instead of 11 paragraphs as in the template, removing the last paragraph if it doesn't fit

So unless you have an extremely important addition to make ? Stick to the 11 paragraphs, less is more

notrightnow

Brilliant. Thank you.

Now submitted

Gr1pr

Great, now study and follow the 8 important steps in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum, first post ( you are a couple of steps in at the moment. )

Please don't post template reply letters from DCB Legal or standard CNBC letters, just keep your eye on your MCOL claim history and those 8 steps, thank you

It will follow the same path as this Parkmaven DCB LEGAL case

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6652707/claim-notice-received-dcb-l-parkmaven-ltd