Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Beaulieu2012 on November 27, 2025, 04:26:38 pm
-
This is the normal process and very much part of the game.
At each stage they hope that you will pay so their letters will always appear to apply pressure - just roll with it.
-
Hello again.
I followed your advice and submitted the defence as worded.
This morning I received the following email:
Good Morning
Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.
Kind Regards,
Litigation Support
DCB Legal Ltd
I haven't added the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire as that doesn't seem noteworthy, but could if needed.
Many thanks in advance
-
Many thanks!
-
It matters not what happened before the claim was issued. If you follow the advice, you will not be paying a penny to ECP.
With an issue date of 25th November, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 29th December to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
-
Oops. Revised above.
-
If you don’t redact at least one of the claim number and the password, someone who doesn’t like you could use them to submit a silly defence on your behalf. Please edit to cover up at least one of these.
-
Here with the N1SDT.
https://ibb.co/MkvRxQw6
Many thanks for your time and expertise.
-
Only show the N1SDT Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) DO NOT redact any dates or times. Whilst you threw away the strongest defence by blabbing the identity of the driver, all is not lost.
I can assure you with greater than 99.9% certainty that if you follow the advice you receive here (after you've shown us the PoC and the date the claim was issued) you will not pay a penny to (not so) Smart Parking.
We will give you the defence and in due course, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. However, that is many months down the line.
So, the claim form please.
-
I received a parking charge notice from Smart Parking in September 2023, after parking at Haven Banks Retail Car Park, Exeter in August (This Google Maps image shows where the entrance was at the time i.e. it has been altered: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7169334,-3.5310927,3a,75y,223.83h,73.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syc0noyXP4B-X2mZpYroQ9A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D16.753880318507%26panoid%3Dyc0noyXP4B-X2mZpYroQ9A%26yaw%3D223.831966445592!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEyMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. I have a photo of the signage taken in October 2023.)
It took them a full month to send the PCN. I entered into communication with them, in the naive hope that my challenge would be dealt with fairly, confirming I was the driver.
I hadn’t kept the parking ticket. But I can, however, be certain I had bought a ticket as we had purchased a new car literally the day before and I didn’t know the number plate, and I remember I had to re-park it in the car park to see the registration from the ticket machine. And, I can be certain I paid for the correct amount of time as the company’s entry/exit photographs show I stayed less than two hours and the minimum purchase time allowed is two hours.
Further, my husband had travelled separately and as I was leaving the car park I met him returning to the other Haven car park (council owned) to add money to his parking time. It is inconceivable that I forgot to pay.
I appealed, explaining all the above but the company produced a computer search showing no payment results against my number plate (a single search against the correct characters, running together). And it maintained I had paid for “insufficient time”.
Possibly something went wrong with the registration entry, but I would suggest that was down to the machine (or later manipulation of the data) not me as I was so focused on getting it right, it being a new car.
I appealed to POPLA and lost as it found the company had followed the correct procedure.
It seems to me it is in the company’s interests for users to lose tickets and/or mis-type their registration etc etc. And that the machine might not operate smoothly with that result in mind. Or that the data could be manipulated later.
That car park is less-well-used than the neighboring one despite being cheaper (because of Smart Parking’s reputation?) so maximizing income from legitimate parking is presumably not the aim.
After losing the appeal I chose to ignore all communications from the company.
Interestingly, Debt Recovery Plus' letters ended in April 2024 only for DCBL to commence writing in August 2025. They sent a letter of claim in October 2025 and I have just received their County Court Claim Form. I can upload any/all of the correspondence but wanted to check first what elements might be of use. Thanks in advance.