DCB LEGAL, SMART PARKING COURT CLAIM

senseionthemoon

As the title suggests,

DCB Legal have been in touch regarding parking tickets from 2021/22, these pertain

to parking in a gym car park operated by SMART parking. I was authorised to use the parking space as a member of the gym, but must have forgot a couple of times to input my vehicle registration details onto their system. I have evidence via bank statement of gym membership payments etc.

Although I do wonder if there is possibility to wiggle out of this one based on the fact every communication sent to me regarding these charges has misspelt my name. I am aware they are able to connect me as the driver through DVLA database etc so may be a long shot, but if anyone can advise on this would be helpful.

Attached is the claim form showing POC sent to me recently dated 11/06/26, unfortunately I am unable to find the LOC (which I did not respond to) sent to me previously but as they have already put in a claim for a more recent parking charge, I was expecting this to get to claim stage.

Is there anything that needs changing about my response this time, or can I simply follow the steps outlined in the newbies thread.

Thank you all.

Gr1pr

Do the AOS online on MCOL ASAP first

Then copy and paste the meltof defence into the defence box, save it, submit it

1505grandad

Hell of a lot of interest if they are claiming £410 pcn and damages

senseionthemoon

AOS Completed today at 16:25

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 11/06/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 30/06/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 14/07/26

As @Gr1pr writes, find the standard Smart Parking defence used by @Meltof dated 12/04/26

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040969#Comment_82040969

It's for 3 PCNs and 3 x double recovery fees.

Three dates are not pleaded, so add that and a short denial of unauthorised parking, somewhere in the first few paragraphs of the Meltof defence.

Here's how to find that:

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. Obviously, as they didn't use the POFA until 2025, theres no 'keeper liability' possible with Smart's claims for old PCNs.


These claims are all the same (none go to hearings) and the sheer numbers of Smart Parking claim threads - about half a dozen new ones EVERY DAY here - have driven us regulars a bit mad in April/May with this batch!

Literally read any Smart thread…

Follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread which also covers Mediation.

It'll be discontinued just before the hearing fee falls due in the Autumn/Winter.

Read @Umkomaas'thread of over 875 examples . And counting!

1505grandad

"It's for 3 PCNs and 3 x double recovery fees."

So I would expect them to claim 3 x £170 = £510 - does it not matter that they have stated £410 in PoC?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82041202#Comment_82041202

Good point. The OP should add to the Smart Parking special defence that there were no damages and £410 isn't a multiple of three, not that three separate dates of breach have been pleaded.

I mean it'll be discontinued by Xmas anyway so it doesn't need overthinking but a good spot, as ever.

senseionthemoon

Thank you all for the advice. below is the defence ready to submit… @Coupon-mad how/where should I place the £410 damages addition?

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

I can't see what you added but I hope you got this in today…?