Hi all,
Thankfully, on 13/07/2026, we were served a Notice of Discontinuance (N279). Not heard from the Court yet that the hearing has been vacated, but given that DCB Legal won't have submitted the requested evidence by the deadline, I can hope it's safe to assume that that's the end of the matter.
If any of the mods want to pin this post, I'd welcome it as it's difficult for a newbie to see a thread that has cases documented to a conclusion.
The Amended Defence my wife and I submitted, along with a witness statement from the driver (backed up with a printed bank statement showing a payment was made to the mentioned furniture store), are as follows with personal details omitted (apologies for how long this will make the post).
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM
Claim number:
Between:
SMART PARKING LIMITED
(Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX
(Defendant)
AMENDED DEFENCE
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration XXXX XXX. It is admitted that the vehicle entered the car park at Harwood House, Melton Mowbray on 8th December 2021. Save as expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim.
2. The Defendant denies that she is liable to the Claimant as driver, keeper, or at all, for the sum claimed or any sum.
Response to the particulars of the claim
3. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.
4. Paragraph 2 is admitted only as to the date of the alleged contravention. It is denied that a valid Parking Charge was lawfully issued.
5. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant was not the driver. The vehicle was not parked in breach of any valid contract. The driver had express or implied permission to use the car park.
6. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). No Notice to Keeper (NTK) or any other notification of the alleged parking charge was ever received by the Defendant. The first correspondence received was a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal and a Final Notice of Debt Recovery from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd, both in July 2025 – over 3 years and 7 months after the alleged contravention. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of full compliance with paragraphs 8 and/or 9 of Schedule 4 (including the content, timing and proper service of any NTK).
Factual Defence – Express/Implied Permission and Inadequate Signage
7. The Vehicle entered the car park for the sole legitimate purpose of the driver purchasing furniture from the Melton & District Furniture Project charity store located at or adjacent to the car park. Due to the heavy and bulky nature of the items, it was necessary and unavoidable for the vehicle to enter the car park.
8. The driver spoke directly with member(s) of staff at the charity store. Staff confirmed that they would take the vehicle’s registration number and clear the car park usage with the landowner/operator. The driver reasonably relied on this assurance that the parking was authorised for this purpose and that no parking charge would be pursued.
9. Further details of the visit, including supporting evidence, are set out in the witness statement of XXXXXX dated 08/05/2026.
10. At the time (December 2021), the signage at the site was inadequate. The driver did not see any prominent parking restriction signs at the entrance to the car park or on the front of the charity shop that would have fairly brought any restrictive terms to the attention of a visitor.
Further and in the alternative
11. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:
• Its authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site on 8th December 2021 (full unredacted contract to be disclosed);
• That the signs at the site in December 2021 were adequate, prominent, legible from the driver’s position, and compliant with the Consumer Right Act 2015 (clear, fair and transparent terms capable of forming a contract);
• The precise wording of the term(s) allegedly breached and exactly how the facts are said to constitute a breach.
Quantum
12. The total sum claimed (£170 plus interest and costs) is disputed in full. The Claimant is put to strict proof of how the sum is calculated and that any additional “damages” or debt recovery costs are lawfully recoverable. Any sum above a genuine core parking charge is likely an unenforceable penalty and/or unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
13. The Defendant denies any liability for interest or costs beyond those permitted on the small claims track.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons set out above, the claim is denied in its entirety. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim and to award costs in her favour.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: __________________
XXXXXXXXX
Dated: 08/05/2026
& Witness Statement:
WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXXX
Claim number: XXXXXXX
Between:
SMART PARKING LIMITED
(Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXX
(Defendant)
WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXX
I, XXXXXXX, of (Personal address), will say as follows:
1. I was the driver of the vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX on 08th December 2021. I make this witness statement in support of the Defendant’s Amended Defence. The facts stated in this witness statement are true.
2. On 8th December 2021 I drove to Harwood House, Melton Mowbray, specifically to purchase furniture from the Melton & District Furniture Project charity store located at or adjacent to the car park.
3. Due to the heavy and bulky nature of the furniture items, it was necessary and unavoidable for me to enter the car park to load the purchased items.
4. I spoke directly with members of staff at the charity store to confirm that my vehicle was okay where it was and explained the purpose of my visit. The staff confirmed that they would take the vehicle’s registration number and clear the use of the car park with the landowner or operator. I reasonably understood from this conversation that the parking was authorised for the purpose of my visit and that no parking charge would be issued.
5. In support of this, I exhibit a copy of my bank statement marked “XXX” showing a payment of £80.00 to the charity store, which shows on the statement as 9th December 2021. This confirms that I was at the store for legitimate purposes on or around the relevant date.
6. At the time of my visit in December 2021, I did not see any prominent parking restriction signs at the entrance to the car park or on the front of the charity shop. While clearer signage now appears to be on the shop front (as visible on Google Maps from 2023 onwards), I believe this was not present or visible in 2021. The charity’s own website homepage also does not show any such signage on the picture of their storefront.
7. I left the vehicle in the car park only for the short time necessary to complete the transaction. I did not have a reasonable opportunity to read and understand any signs that purported to impose a parking charge in these circumstances.
8. To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor the registered keeper received any Notice to Keeper, parking charge notice, or any other communication about this alleged contravention until the debt recovery and letter of claim letters arrived in July 2025.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in truth.
Signed:________________________
XXXXXXXXX
Dated: 08/05/2026