DCB Legal/Smart Parking CCJ claim

vkotios

Hello all,

I must say that Claude has this forum on high regard since it repeatedly recommended to try to get some advice from here.

Here is the case
1. I visited a pub on New Year's Eye of 2024, parked my car, stayed there for 30mins or so and left. I hadn't seen any sign indicating that a parking fee needed to be paid. To be honest, I visited this place years ago and you had to pay for parking back then, so me and 3 another people accompanying me spend like 5-6mins roaming around the place, trying to find a payment machine or a sign showing an area code or something like that. We couldn't find anything, so I assume that after the works of the council in that area, the parking was now free.

2. I received a letter for a parking fine from Smart Parking in January 2025. I was confused so I drove back to the area, got some pictures of the entrance, still no sign but I was able to locate the payment machine this time. It was hidden by a tree not visible from the area I had parked. Then went to Google Maps to find pictures of how the parking looked like before and found pictures with enhance signs that used to exist before but probably removed during landscaping works in the area.

3. I challenged the parking ticket and Smart Parking rejected my appeal even though the reason was valid and they were at fault. I did not go for adjudication and waste my time in that just became Smart Parking wants me to. I simply ignored them and let pay the numerous letters they sent up to now.

4. Smart Parking assigned the case to DCB Legal which served me a CCJ claim.

I used Claude, and OpenCase to draft a response. I would appreciate if anyone can take a look and provide any feedback/advice. See below and thank you in advance!

IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the Claimant's claim in its entirety and puts the Claimant to strict proof of all matters alleged.

2. The Particulars of Claim are brief and do not clearly identify the precise contractual term relied upon, the conduct said to constitute the breach, or the legal basis of the additional sum claimed over and above the original Parking Charge. The Defendant has nevertheless pleaded to the best of his ability, on the basis that the claim sounds in contract. If the Claimant's case is not properly particularised, the Defendant may seek further information or appropriate directions from the Court.

BACKGROUND

3. The Claimant is a private parking operator which operates Y ("the Car Park") using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle X and confirms that he was the driver on 31 December 2024.

5. On 31 December 2024, vehicle X entered the Car Park and departed approximately 48 minutes later. The Defendant was accompanied by three companions — his girlfriend and another couple. The party made a brief visit to Y, situated immediately adjacent to the Car Park, on New Year's Eve. The pub was closing early and the party departed shortly after arrival. None of the four individuals saw any clear, prominent, or legible entrance sign indicating that the site was chargeable or subject to parking terms and conditions.

PRIMARY DEFENCE: NO CONTRACT WAS FORMED

6. The Claimant's case rests on breach of contract. For a binding contract to be formed, the Claimant must clearly and prominently communicate the parking terms — including any charge and the method of payment — in such time and manner as to give the motorist a fair opportunity to read and accept them before or at the time of parking. A motorist cannot be bound by terms they had no reasonable opportunity to read and accept. Onerous terms in particular must be fairly and prominently brought to the attention of the motorist before any contract is concluded (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163), and a motorist is not bound by terms where the signage was not sufficiently brought to their attention (Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106). Further or alternatively, any term imposing the parking charge was a consumer notice required to be transparent and prominent pursuant to sections 62, 64, and 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claimant is put to proof that the charge and the method of payment were fairly and prominently brought to the driver's attention before or at the time of parking.

7. At the time of the Defendant's visit on X date, neither the Defendant nor his three companions saw any clear, prominent, or legible entrance sign indicating that payment was required or that parking was subject to terms and conditions. Upon receiving the Parking Charge Notice and becoming aware that Smart Parking alleged a payment obligation existed, the Defendant returned to the Car Park X date to inspect the signage. The Defendant will rely on photographs taken on that date from a driver's perspective at the entrance, which show no clear entrance sign indicating paid parking, parking terms and conditions, or Smart Parking signage at the point of entry. The Defendant had no reason to photograph the entrance on 31 December 2024, because nothing visible at the entrance alerted him to any payment obligation or potential parking charge.

8. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association and is required, as a condition of BPA Approved Operator Scheme membership and of access to DVLA keeper data, to comply with the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice. The Defendant relies on that Code, and on relevant industry guidance concerning entrance signage and notice of parking terms, as persuasive evidence of reasonable practice. The Code is not a substitute for the common-law and statutory tests of incorporation, prominence, and fairness set out above, but it is relevant to whether the Claimant took reasonable steps to bring the alleged terms to the driver's attention. The Claimant's rejection letter dated 6 February 2025 asserted compliance with entrance-signage requirements; the Claimant is put to strict proof, by dated contemporaneous evidence, of the signage actually in place on 31 December 2024.

9. For context only, the Defendant notes that Google Street View imagery from May 2015 shows a large entrance sign previously displayed at this location by a prior operator, identifying the site as a Pay and Display Car Park; this is relied upon not as proof of the position in 2024, but to illustrate that the location is capable of displaying a clear entrance sign of the kind absent on the material date.

10. The Defendant will further rely on photographs taken in June 2026 showing that a "X area — Pay on arrival" board and a Smart Parking terms and conditions panel have since been installed at the entrance to the Car Park. The Defendant does not rely on this as an admission by the Claimant, but as evidence that the location is capable of displaying clear entrance signage, and that the absence of such signage — as observed by the Defendant and his companions on 31 December 2024 and as shown in the Defendant's inspection photographs of 26 January 2025 — was material.

11. The Defendant intends to rely at the witness statement stage on evidence from the three companions present on 31 December 2024, each of whom can corroborate that no entrance signage indicating a parking charge or payment obligation was observed when the vehicle entered the site.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage actually in place on 31 December 2024, including dated photographs, installation or maintenance records, and evidence that any entrance sign was visible, legible, and sufficiently readable to a motorist entering the site at night. The Defendant is unaware of any reason why compliant entrance signage would have existed on 31 December 2024 but been absent when the Defendant returned to inspect the site on 26 January 2025. If the Claimant asserts that compliant entrance signage existed on 31 December 2024 but was absent on 26 January 2025, the Claimant is put to strict proof of any installation, removal, replacement, or alteration during that period. The Claimant is further put to strict proof that the site signage gave adequate notice that ANPR cameras were in use for parking enforcement and of the purpose for which vehicle registration data would be captured and used.

13. In the absence of any clear, prominent, and legible entrance sign on 31 December 2024, no contract was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant. The Defendant was given no fair opportunity to read, consider, or accept any terms and conditions of parking, and no onerous charging term was incorporated. The Parking Charge was not correctly issued and the claim must fail.

14. This case is plainly distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case, the charge was upheld in circumstances where the parking terms and charge were prominently displayed on numerous clear and legible signs. Here, the Defendant's case is that no entrance sign clearly communicated that the site was subject to payment or parking terms at all. Accordingly, any alleged term imposing a parking charge was not incorporated into any contract, was not transparent, and cannot bind the Defendant.

SECONDARY DEFENCE: PAYMENT MACHINE WAS NOT REASONABLY DISCOVERABLE

15. The payment machine at the Car Park is located at the opposite end of the Car Park from where vehicle X was parked, pressed against a dense hedge with its indicator partially obscured by vegetation. The Defendant will rely on aerial map evidence and photographs showing the vehicle's parking position relative to the payment machine and the extent of its concealment.

16. With vehicles parked in the intervening row and in the absence of any directional signage, the payment machine was not visible from the Defendant's parking position. On the night of 31 December 2024, visibility was further reduced. Even in current daylight photographs taken after the hedge has been trimmed, the machine remains partially obscured by vegetation.

17. The failure of all four adults present to identify any indication of a parking charge or to locate any payment machine is consistent with the Defendant's case that no clear entrance sign was present and that no payment machine was reasonably visible from the Defendant's parking position.

18. The Claimant's ANPR system records only the vehicle's entry and exit times. It does not prove the period during which the vehicle was actually parked, nor does it prove that the driver had a fair opportunity to locate, read, understand, and accept any contractual terms. The alleged 48-minute period included entering the site, finding a place to stop, attending The Lakes Pub and Bistro immediately adjacent to the Car Park, discovering that the pub was closing early, returning to the vehicle, and exiting the site.

INCONSISTENCY IN THE CLAIMANT'S DOCUMENTATION

19. The Claimant's documents do not clearly identify the basis of the alleged contravention. The Particulars of Claim cite reason code "05A — Paid For Insufficient Time," while the Claimant's rejection letter dated 6 February 2025 states that no payment was made at all. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the precise factual basis of the alleged breach — including payment records, machine records, and ANPR data — and of the precise contractual term said to have been breached.

LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

20. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had, at the material time, written authority from the landowner or lawful occupier of the Car Park to manage the site, erect and maintain signage, issue parking charges, and bring legal proceedings in its own name. The Defendant requires production of the relevant written authorisation or contract, including the defined site boundaries, the terms of enforcement, the allocation of responsibility for signage, and confirmation that the authority expressly extended to the institution of legal proceedings.

KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA 2012

21. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant was the driver. The claim therefore stands or falls on ordinary contractual principles, including adequate notice and incorporation of terms. If, contrary to that admission, the Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability in the alternative, it is put to strict proof of full compliance with every requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

THE ADDED £60 DEBT-RECOVERY SUM

22. The original Parking Charge was £90. The Particulars of Claim, however, plead £150 as "the total of the PC and damages," thereby adding a sum of £60 over and above the original charge. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to recover this additional £60. The Claimant is put to proof of the contractual basis for that sum and of clear and prominent notice of it to the driver. The £60 represents a debt-recovery or administration uplift that was not incorporated into any contract, was not actually incurred as a distinct loss, and amounts to double recovery. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the parking charge upheld by the Supreme Court was understood to encompass the operator's ordinary business costs and was not supplemented by any further debt-recovery uplift of this kind. The Defendant further relies on the fairness requirements of sections 62, 63, and 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, under the last of which the Court is required to consider the fairness of a consumer-contract term whether or not raised by the parties. The Defendant also relies, insofar as the Court considers it persuasive, on Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Bradford County Court, claim G4QZ465V, July 2020), a County Court decision in which a comparable added sum was disallowed as serving an improper collateral purpose and as an attempt to circumvent the costs regime of CPR 27.14. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not dispute the separately itemised fixed court fee or the fixed legal representative's costs.

CONCLUSION

23. No binding contract was formed due to the absence of adequate entrance signage on 31 December 2024. The Defendant had no reasonable means of knowing that the Car Park was subject to payment or where payment could be made. The Claimant's case is plainly distinguishable from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, in which signage was prominent and plentiful. The later installation of clear entrance signage demonstrates that the location is capable of displaying such signage. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage actually in place on the material date, its authority from the landowner, its ANPR evidence, and its entitlement to the additional sum claimed. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

EVIDENCE TO BE RELIED UPON

The Defendant will rely upon the following at the witness statement stage:

A. Photographs of the Car Park entrance taken by the Defendant on X date, following receipt of the Parking Charge Notice, showing the driver's approach to the entrance and the absence of clear entrance signage indicating paid parking, parking terms and conditions, or Smart Parking control

B. Google Street View imagery, May 2015 — Car Park entrance, wide shot

C. Google Street View imagery, May 2015 — Napier Parking entrance sign, close-up

D. Current photograph of Car Park entrance showing new signage now installed, June 2026, wide shot

E. Current photograph of new Smart Parking entrance signage, June 2026, close-up

F. Aerial/map view of Car Park showing vehicle parking position and payment machine location

G. Photographs of payment machine location and partial concealment by vegetation, June 2026

H. Smart Parking rejection letter dated X date

I. Witness statements from three companions present on 31 December 2024 (to be served in due course)

Le_Kirk

That is way too long for a defence, it will not fit in the defence box on MCOL. Suggest you read the NEWBIE sticky and then use the defence version posted by @Meltof on 12 April 2026. You might save some of what you wrote for the witness statement further down the process.

ChirpyChicken

Use the standard smart parking defence.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044972#Comment_82044972

Yep, bin the Claude one although kudos to its owner, Anthropic, for now repeatedly sending people like the OP to this bespoke board!

You certainly DO NOT talk in defence about "the Defendant's visit" or "and confirms that he was the driver on 31 December 2024". Eeeek no!

And it's a real shame that you appealed as driver in 2024. Never do that again. First rule with private land 'PCNs' is to appeal and defend as registered keeper. You'd have won with a simple ONE LINER email 18 months ago, had you asked us then.

I will add you to my recent collection of DCB Legal./Smart new claims we are handling, linked on page 10 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81603752#Comment_81603752




Click on any of them. Yours is the same.

There is a current tsunami of Smart Parking claims.

So much so, that I now have copy & paste advice ready AND a bespoke defence:

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! Yours will end up there. You can still use the Meltof defence, even though you blabbed about driving in 2024 because DCB Legal have no file or details and will discontinue. It is their MO. 100%.

vkotios

Thank you for your help! Actually that's something I checked with Claude after you've raised it as important. This was hallucinated by the LLM because I was describing the situation in first person lol. I never admitted to Smart Parking that I was the driver during appeal. I have submitted my defence based on the template you've suggested! Hopefully they will discontinue like the rest of cases! :)

Le_Kirk

This was hallucinated by the LLM because I was describing the situation in first person lol

I have read that several times and still cannot understand what you are trying to say!