DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102059--------------------------------------------------
Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: SJC
Date: December 11, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
We received a letter from DCB Legal relating to a parking ticket
(insufficent time paid) from 3/7/23 asking for £170. We never
recieved any Parking ticket etc.
I ignored the first few letters but did fill in the online form
when the Letter of Claim was issued. They sent back a picture of
the car but no reference to the original parking ticket.
I now have treats of a CCJ and a claim form. Charge has moved to
£290 after I filled in the Letter of Claim.
Any advice please, need to complete in the next couple of days.
Other half wants to pay and move on.
#Post#: 102122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 12, 2025, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
" ignored the first few letters but did fill in the online form
when the Letter of Claim was issued.
This form was it a County Court claim form?
#Post#: 102127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: SJC
Date: December 12, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The online form was responding to Letter of Claim.
The new form is from Civil National Business Centre with a Claim
No and The County Court Stamp.
Thanks,
#Post#: 102129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 12, 2025, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please read
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>and follow its advice and links to advice on posting images so
that we can see what you are talking about.
You have to help us to help you.
#Post#: 102177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This will be a claim issued by DCB Legal and it will be signed
by David Croot. All I need to know is the issue date of the
claim.
I can guarantee, with greater than 99.9% certainty, that if you
follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a
penny to (not so) Smart Parking. So, give me the date of issue
of the claim and I will advise you on exactly how you defend
this against this claim.
Also, it was a dumb move to use DCB Legal's online portal. All
you had to do in response to their LoC was send an email. If you
start to receive texts or calls from DCB Legal, DO NOT respond
tot hem. Just block their number from your phone.
#Post#: 102215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: SJC
Date: December 12, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Issue date was 2nd December 2025.
OK, understood on phone messages/emails.
#Post#: 102281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: b789
Date: December 13, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 2nd December, you have until 4pm on Monday
22nd December to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 5th 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:
HTML 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.
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102452--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: SJC
Date: December 15, 2025, 3:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
So literally copy and paste word for word into the MCOL?
Thanks for your help, so frustrating in the first place.
#Post#: 102461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart Parking Limited DCB Legal
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 15, 2025, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's ultimately your defence, so make sure you understand it
before doing so.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1