Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would greatly appreciate some advice on this claim from Smart Parking dating back some 19 months.

Smart Parking issued a PCN to the registered keeper on the 10/04/2024 some 17 days after the alleged offence (24/03/2025). I responded to the original notice stating that under the PoFA (2012), as there was no ticket issued on site, the notice fell outside of the 14 day period required to comply. They rejected this and have been pursuing me ever since.

Sadly, the usual letters chasing the charge have been lost, but I have the original notice. I have not responded to any of the subsequent correspondence and have ignored the letters.

I have just received claim from HM Courts and tribunals notifying me of a claim against me from DCB Legal Ltd. It arrived 6 days from date of issue (05/12/2025) so am now short on time to respond.

The case is complex because the dates and times of the alleged offence are not in dispute, but the establishment of the 'contract' between the driver and the rugby club are ambiguous and contradictory. We were invited guests of Exmouth Rugby Club and were touring the region with various age groups (some 50 or so parents and children). Exmouth RFC established their ANPR managed parking system in the February and we visited in the March. We began organising the tour long before (September of 23) and during our initial communications, nothing about parking was mentioned. Closer to the date we had further communication from Exmouth RFC, but the advice differed depending on age group and was obscure. Some were told as visitors We were entitled to register and park for free (a tablet system was available if you knew about it). Some were told to pay on the Ringo app and other age groups didn't receive communication of any sort.

Some 30 or so of our members were issued parking charge notices that day. I wrote and spoke to my contemporary (Exmouth RFC  Junior Chairman) in my position as Junior Chairman of our rugby club and asked him (as the land owners) to cancel the charges due to the confused communication and inadequate signage.

He asked me to send a list of registration numbers and promised to 'look into it'. I sent the numbers but nothing further was heard and subsequent attempts to contact failed.

I would greatly appreciate any advice from this forum as have just a few days to acknowledge the claim. I am keen to defend my position in any way possible as feel strongly we have not had a clear and binding contract with Exmouth RFC who will ultimately profit from this action.

Kind regards.

Thank you so much for your help so far. Please find the image links (name/address redacted) including the original PCN.

https://ibb.co/bgcJvdRZ
https://ibb.co/n856KQYr
https://ibb.co/ZRPhGKWy
https://ibb.co/Y6c2pD6
https://ibb.co/zMgbYy8
https://ibb.co/bRbyF8mV

I have a government gateway account so am hoping to deal with this online, otherwise the postal reply will need to be sent soon as took 6 days to get to me. Can I files the acknowledgement of service to buy more time?

With an issue date of 5th December, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 24th December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 7thth January 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.

DCB Legal tried to contact me by phone today (07/01/2026) but I declined the call. I am not sure if I should talk to DCB Legal, from reading the forum previously, it appeared to recommend not speaking to them.

Should I speak with them regarding this case?

Many thanks if you can advise. Kind regards.

And so it goes on...I received this (via email only) yesterday. It has an N180 'Directions Questionnaire' attachment pre-filled out by DCB. I am under the impression that I should only respond to written correspondence and requests, does this constitute written as via email? Should I respond or ignore.

Many thanks again for all the help and advice.

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 0433 within 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

 

Tel: 0203 838 7038 | DX 23457 Runcorn

The common advice given here is

Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:

• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".

• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".

• C1: "YES"

• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."

• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option

• F3: "1".

• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.

When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and (email of solicitor) and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.

You have already submitted your defence. The purpose of the N180, inter alia, is to get the case allocated in person to your local court.

You do not need to discuss your defence during the mediation session.

You offer £0 to settle and that will be the end of it.

Search the forum for “mediation” to read up on many similar cases.

If the mediator tries to bring your defence into the discussion you should report them for exceeding their role, capabilities and abilities. They are not legally trained or competent.

Smart are former clampers, and DCB Legal are 99% certain to discontinue if you follow the advice here. Again, search the forum.

My assumption is here that once I declare that I am not prepared to negotiate and that the offer is £0 the call ends?

You're not saying that you are not prepared to negotiate. You are perfectly willing to settle - your settlement offer is £0, in return for Smart Parking agreeing to discontinue the case with both parties covering their own costs.