NE Parking / Smart Parking DCBL Court Claim

woowaah

Sorry for the long one but in chronological order..

• PC received from NE Parking for parking in a closed business forecourt.
• PC contravention dates/times blank.
• Photographs supplied as evidence show they were on site for 28 seconds.
• Appealed to NE Parking based on 28 seconds consideration / Grace.
• Automated acknowledgement received from NE Parking.
• Received debt collectors letter and challenged based on no appeal response.
• NE Parking claimed never to have received my appeal.
• Sent them proof - low an behold they find the letter that they "sent me" but they have no proof of postage.
• MCOL CNBC received from DCBL for Smart Parking being the creditor.
• AOS submitted.

Do I use Meltofs defence template or tailor it for nuances below, or wait for the WS for this?

• Smart Parking is not the alleged creditor.
• I had no contract with Smart Parking.
• Illegally sold debt - No "Notice of Assignment" served.
• Illegally shared DVLA data.
• 28 Seconds considerations/grace time.
• Failure to respond to appeal.
• PC info blank.

woowaah

I hope this into evidence will be damning enough

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 20/05/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 22/06/26

Find the Smart Parking Group Thread and use the defence posted by @Meltof on 12 April 2026 with no changes.

Gr1pr

Given that it says Smart Parking on the claim form and the issues it raises regarding the possible incorrect claimant, i would wait for other replies regarding those issues above, like NE Parking, which is why I suggested to you in the meltof thread to start a new thread so they can get feedback regarding "wrong person answer"

woowaah

Thank you both. Will wait for more replies.
Copilot is of the opinion I go in with a no legal standing as paragraph 1 and then continue with Meltofs defence. Saving appeals process for witness statements.

The Claimant lacks the requisite legal standing (locus standi) to bring or maintain this claim. The Particulars of Claim fail to disclose any valid legal or equitable assignment of the alleged debt from the original creditor. The Defendant understands that the original alleged creditor was NE Parking Ltd; however, the Claimant has provided no evidence of any lawful transfer of rights from that entity.
The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof that it is the lawful owner of the alleged account, including full documentary evidence of any assignment. In particular, the Claimant is required to demonstrate that a compliant Notice of Assignment, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, was properly executed and served upon the Defendant prior to the commencement of these proceedings.
In the absence of such proof, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant and the claim is denied in its entirety.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't send that as your para 3 because it's unlawful to assign DVLA keeper data, so you DON'T want a Deed of Assignment as proof!

Copilot doesn't know that, but we do.

I'd use the Template Defence (not Meltof's version) and create a para 3 as you planned:

• Smart Parking is not the alleged creditor.
• I had no contract with Smart Parking.

Nothing about assignment or grace period or appeals. This is the wrong Claimant.

woowaah

@Coupon-mad How do you think this would suit?

3. The Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant lacks standing (locus standi) to bring this claim. The Defendant understands that the alleged creditor is NE Parking Ltd, and that Smart Parking Limited is not the alleged creditor. The Defendant has no knowledge of any lawful basis upon which Smart Parking Limited is entitled to pursue this claim.

3.1 The Defendant, as registered keeper, did not enter into any contract with Smart Parking Limited, whether expressly, impliedly, or by conduct. It is denied that any driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement with Smart Parking Limited, or was afforded a fair opportunity to consider and accept any such terms.

Coupon-mad

Perfect!

🙂

woowaah

Thank you. Will posit it into the template and leave it here for anyone with the same issue.
I have been told NE Parking employee a few addicts on push irons roaming the streets of Blackpool taking their photos for their next fix. So I expect there are a few more in the same boat.

Gr1pr

This Saga is what troubled me when you were in the group thread by member sluzz, because Smart Parking are listed as the claimant, so as their website shows a Smart Parking email address, clearly its muddy waters, so needs a different approach, as you have already mentioned

So well done and it will be interesting to see what DCB Legal do with it

woowaah

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 Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant lacks standing (locus standi) to bring this claim. The Defendant understands that the alleged creditor is NE Parking Ltd, and that Smart Parking Limited is not the alleged creditor. The Defendant has no knowledge of any lawful basis upon which Smart Parking Limited is entitled to pursue this claim.

3.1 The Defendant, as registered keeper, did not enter into any contract with Smart Parking Limited, whether expressly, impliedly, or by conduct. It is denied that any driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement with Smart Parking Limited, or was afforded a fair opportunity to consider and accept any such terms.

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))'.