DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116695--------------------------------------------------
Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: samengel
Date: April 22, 2026, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I recieved a parking ticket from Smart Parking from 2022 and
have naturally been sent dozens of spam letters. Recently, I got
the letter of claim from DCB Legal Ltd and responded with the
following email.
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and
> fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places
reliance
> upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt
> Claims.
>
> As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to
comply with
> paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and
paragraphs
> 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions
exist to
> facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution.
You may
> wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part
> 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to
understand each
> other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes
disclosure of
> key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none.
That
> omission undermines the only foundation upon which your
client’s claim
> allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful
> pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very
document
> you purport to enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that
> complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a
formal
> response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please
provide:
>
> 1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any
notice chain
> relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
> 2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your
client and
> the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place
on the
> material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan
showing
> the sign locations.
> 3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
> 4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner
> evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
> 5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the
principal
> sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the
£70 “debt
> recovery” add-on includes VAT.
>
> I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c) of
> the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own
obligation
> under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as
non-compliance
> with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal
> complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the
right to
> place this correspondence before the Court and to seek
appropriate
> sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay
and/or other
> case management orders).
>
> Until your client complies and provides the requested
material, I am
> unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider
my
> position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court
time to
> issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate
case
> management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice
> Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
>
> Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will
only
> respond by email.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
They then responded with the following email
--- Quote ---
>
> We write in response to your correspondence received in our
office.
> We now respond to the same as follows.
>
> It is our position that the Letter of Claim ("LOC") is
compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims ("the
Protocol"). The LOC provides adequate information for you to
identify the debt that our client is seeking to recover. We
respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the
Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act
reasonably and proportionately.
>
> When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the
site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and
agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site.
Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage
means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.
>
> The terms and conditions on the signs clearly provided tariff
rates to pay for parking, if the correct payment was not made a
parking charge would be issued. The parking charge was issued
correctly as you failed to pay for the correct time your vehicle
was on site.
>
> In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our
client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details
were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our
client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to
either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a
driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither
and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were
driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the
driver, you would have nominated.
>
> In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code
of Practice, where the Parking Charge (PC) becomes overdue and
before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be
added for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have
been added and will not be removed. As such, the outstanding
balance of £170.00 remains payable to prevent further action.
>
> As payment was not made, either within 14 or 28 days, the
creditor was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents /
Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the
costs of doing so. It would have been made clear in the terms
and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement
costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment.
>
> If there are any documents that you have requested, but that
are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be
disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues
in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph
2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are
expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
>
> You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make
payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a
Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
>
--- End Quote ---
And provided CCTV of my car at the time, but with stock images
of the signs displayed not an actual image of the signs.
How should I reply to this? Any help would be greatly
appreciated.
#Post#: 116696--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 22, 2026, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well,
--- Quote ---
> In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, our
client submitted a request for details to the DVLA. Your details
were provided and thereafter notices were sent to you by our
client at your serviceable address. Those notices asked you to
either make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a
driver by providing their name and full address. You did neither
and as such you are now pursued on the basis that you were
driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were not the
driver, you would have nominated.
--- End Quote ---
is utter rubbish, lies stated as fact in the hope that you
believe them. They can pursue whom they like, but their is no
legal basis for identifying you as the driver, unless you did so
explicitly.
Do you have the original NtK you can show us? You said you
received it.
#Post#: 116701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: samengel
Date: April 22, 2026, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Well,
> [quote]In order to identify the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle, our client submitted a request for details to the DVLA.
Your details were provided and thereafter notices were sent to
you by our client at your serviceable address. Those notices
asked you to either make payment or, if you were not driving,
nominate a driver by providing their name and full address. You
did neither and as such you are now pursued on the basis that
you were driving. On the balance of probabilities, if you were
not the driver, you would have nominated.
--- End Quote ---
is utter rubbish, lies stated as fact in the hope that you
believe them. They can pursue whom they like, but their is no
legal basis for identifying you as the driver, unless you did so
explicitly.
Do you have the original NtK you can show us? You said you
received it.
[/quote]
The earliest letter I have is a PCN from 05/08/22, with the fine
being for 23/07/2022. I don't recall ever receiving a letter
that stated it was a NtK explicity. The PCN shows the same
images of the car from the CCTV and asks for £100 (£60 if paid
promptly).
#Post#: 116703--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 22, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) probably is also the Notice to
Keeper (NtK).
Please show it, with reference to
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
If the dates are as above it is likely too late to enable
transfer of liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper.
Event: 23/7/22
Notice: 5/8/22
Deemed delivered: 9/8/22, 17 days after the event
And it’s not a fine!
Your next step is probably to receive and defend a court claim
on this basis, which will likely be discontinued before actually
going to court by the claimant.
#Post#: 116734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: samengel
Date: April 22, 2026, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) probably is also the Notice to
Keeper (NtK).
> Please show it, with reference to
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
> If the dates are as above it is likely too late to enable
transfer of liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper.
> Event: 23/7/22
> Notice: 5/8/22
> Deemed delivered: 9/8/22, 17 days after the event
>
> And it’s not a fine!
>
> Your next step is probably to receive and defend a court claim
on this basis, which will likely be discontinued before actually
going to court by the claimant.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is the PCN
HTML https://ibb.co/5hN2fBzh
that I recieved, what would the next
steps be exactly?
#Post#: 116740--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 22, 2026, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You wait for a court claim form (N1SDT) and file a defence to
it.
Your defence is that you, the registered keeper, are not liable
because Smart has not complied with the requirements of PoFA
2012 (
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
to
transfer liability from the driver to you. You have not and will
not be identifying the driver.
Search the forum for similar examples in the meantime.
DCB Legal usually discontinues defended claims but there are
steps in the process, again search the forum to see what
happens.
#Post#: 120883--------------------------------------------------
Court Claim Form From DCB Legal and Smart Parking
DIR By: samengel
Date: June 5, 2026, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’ve received a claim form from HM courts, following on from my
previous post.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/reply-to-dcb-letter-of-claim-on-behalf-of-smart-parking/msg116695/#msg116695
I’ve attached the forms and was hoping I could get some help
with regards to what I should write in the defence.
HTML https://ibb.co/G4nhbQgj
HTML https://ibb.co/LDFWxWmL
#Post#: 120888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court Claim Form From DCB Legal and Smart Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 5, 2026, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have requested that the moderators combine this with your
existing thread.
#Post#: 120889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 5, 2026, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So Reply #5.
What did you find in the time since then, by searching the forum
for example?
#Post#: 120930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply to DCB Letter of Claim on behalf of Smart Parking
DIR By: samengel
Date: June 6, 2026, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> So Reply #5.
> What did you find in the time since then, by searching the
forum for example?
>
--- End Quote ---
I've looked at this recent post
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/private-parking-court-claim-received-retail-park-short-stay/msg119996/#msg119996
I've put this together below but I am not sure if it is right.
That PCN I posted previously is exactly 14 days from the when
they claim. However, it doesn't make any mention of transferring
liability to the driver, so is it even a NtK?
In this thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/received-letter-of-claim-please-advise!!!/15/<br
/>they seem to outline a very different response, and so I am
not
sure which one is really best.
Defense
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and no debt is
owed to the Claimant.
2. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle at the material time.
3. The Claimant is unable to identify the driver at the material
time and there is no legal obligation for the vehicle keeper to
provide this information to the Claimant and I will not be doing
so under any circumstance.
4. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms
Act (PoFA) (2012) which allows them to transfer liability from
the unknown driver to the Registered Keeper but ONLY when the
strict requirements of the legislation are met.
5. That, in this instance, the Claimant is unable to meet the
requirements of PoFA as the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK)
was not delivered to the Registered Keeper within the statutory
timeframe of 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event.
Furthermore, the Claimant should provide evidence of posting and
service should they dispute this.
6. Instead, the Claimant isssued a parking charge notice (PCN)
directly to the keeper which did not explicitly identify the
driver, nor made any request to the keeper to identify the
driver and furthermore contained insufficient information.
Additionally, the Claimant was unable to provide evidence of
sufficient signage at the alleged time.
7. That the Claimant's issued PCN shows that the alleged parking
event took place on 24rd July 2022 but the notice was only
issued on 5th August 2022, and therefore could not have been
reasonably served within the 14 day requirement.
8. That with the Claimant unable to either identify the driver
or rely on PoFA there is no legal route to liability in this
matter.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page