Free Traffic Legal Advice

The date the claimant must pay the court fee by is June 19th

Here's the defence that I submitted:

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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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 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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.

Hey everyone, so I have an update:

I have received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing), it is scheduled to take place in July.
The claimant has until mid June to pay the court fee of £27 or the claim will be struck out.

I also have a mid-June deadline to submit all documents relevant to the case and a witness statement should I so choose.

Do I need to start thinking about my defence? There's not much to say about the alleged incident, what with it being nearly 5 years ago now, all I may have is vague recollections.

DCB have left messages and emailed, trying to get me to settle for about half what they're claiming.

I also received a whole bunch of erroneous parking fine letters from Smart Parking and then subsequent debt collection scare mongering letters from DCB legal, all relating to a gym visit where the person who parked was a member and entered their registration. The gym in question instructed Smart many times to desist, and only after the 3rd/4th attempt did they eventually stop and the gym apologised, there is an email trail.
I am of the opinion that this could be good evidence to show how disorganised Smart/DCB are.

Thoughts?

Hi everyone, having submitted a completed N180 form based on the guidance kindly provided by b789, I now have a mediation appointment in the near future.

What's the general advice on how I should state my position? I have just re-read the defence arguments that b789 helpfully provided, and they seem easy enough to understand, despite being in what appears to be legal spiel, at least from my layman's perspective.
I am required to briefly explain my defence to the mediator and prepare a brief summary of the main points.

Should I generally speak like a regular person, which is essentially what I am? 
I want to reject the claim, due to lack of merit and standing, but I don't want to come across as unreasonable and stubborn.
Should I divulge what I remember in so far as receiving increased penalty payment demands through the post, months after the alleged breach of contract?

I'm guessing the nitty gritty details of the case won't be brought up by the mediator anyway...
 

Hi all, I have an update on my case

I had an email from DCB legal informing that their client intends to proceed with their claim, they also tried to call me, no doubt to try and get a settlement fee out of me.

Today I received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' in the post today.

It said

TAKE NOTICE THAT

1. This is now a defended claim
The defendant has filed a defence

2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track
If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why

3. you must by 23 October 2025 complete the Small Claims Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office and serve copies on all other parties

Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated, is there something in section C or D I can enter to get an outcome in my favour?

21/08/25

I was going to acknowledge the service, and invoke the request for 28 days, I guess I may as well do this for starters?

Hi everyone, thanks in advance, I have had a claim made against me by Smart Parking, through DCB legal, for a PCN related to an alleged breach of terms, date of alleged contravention is 01/06/2021. As this was over 4 years ago, I have no recollection of who might have been driving.

They are asking for £315.52 in total, inc court fee and £50 legal representative fee

I am\was the registered keeper of the vehicle

I do vaguely recall receiving a PCN letter around the time, but I couldn't say if this was within 14 days of the alleged incident.
I seem to remember being surprised to find there were parking charges, as the stop was brief, probably to allow an occupant to visit the WC, or take some medicine, and that the PCN amount was extortionate, so I thought based on this, and Smart Parking's bad reputation, that I wouldn't waste time engaging directly with them as the registered keeper.

I have read a couple of topics where the scenarios seem similar to mine:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/court-claim-form-dcb-legal-and-was-not-the-driver-please-help/

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/smart-parking-pcn-paid-for-insufficient-time-turner-contemporary-car-park-margat/msg77804/#msg77804

Please advise on the strongest argument for disputing this claim
I can post the full particulars of the claim if that helps
Thanks again