DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102363--------------------------------------------------
Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: Mrl
Date: December 13, 2025, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
I just received a letter from HM courts and tribunals about a
parking invoice that was issued in 2021. I disputed the invoice
back the company as they never sent it to me in the post and
only heard about it originally when I received a letter from a
so called debt collection agency. I had contacted smart parking
and told them but they didn't want to know and kept referring it
to the debt collection even when I asked for proof that they had
ever sent me a letter in the first place. In the end they failed
to provide the proof or reply to the last email so I had left it
at that. 3 years on they went back to a different collection
agency and are back to their old tricks but I ignored it this
time until now when I receives the letter from HM courts. Not
sure what to do and any help would be appreciated. Thank you
#Post#: 102364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hm courts and Tribunals
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 13, 2025, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We held a seance and managed to contact the late Doris Stokes.
She thinks that this "letter" from HMCTS might be a claim form.
She also said that there is a sticky hidden at the top of this
forum with "READ THIS FIRST" in the title, although
unfortunately she was unable to advise what should be done with
that thread.
#Post#: 102366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: Mrl
Date: December 13, 2025, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, sorry new to this. Yes it a claim form from HM courts.
#Post#: 102377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 14, 2025, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was the driver identified in any contact with Smart?
Do not speak to any of these people, everything in writing.
You must always refer to "the driver" only.
#Post#: 102378--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 14, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mrl link ---
>
> Hi, sorry new to this. Yes it a claim form from HM courts.
>
--- End Quote ---
So please show it to us, obscuring your personal details, the
claim number and the password.
#Post#: 102394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 14, 2025, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY thing we need to know right now is the Issue Date of
the N1SDT Claim Form that has the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on
it. I can already tell you that it has been submitted by DCB
Legal and that it is signed by David Croot on the back. And
that's without even having seen it because "Doris Stokes" told
me so.
Once you tell me that, I will give you all the advice you need
on how to respond to it. If you follow that advice, I can
guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty that you will not be
paying a penny to (not so) Smart Parking. If you don't want to
follow the advice and end up FUBARing this, the be my guest.
#Post#: 102405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 14, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please read the "READ THIS FIRST" post and update accordingly,
including showing us the actual claim form.
Whilst it can be tempting, members should not provide advice
based on assumptions.
(Let's not forget it isn't long since Smart suddenly ditched the
BPA in favour of the IPC and changed their PCN templates - they
could easily do the same with their law firm of choice)
#Post#: 102744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: Mrl
Date: December 16, 2025, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, sorry took a while but think I figured out how to post a pic
#Post#: 102745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: Mrl
Date: December 16, 2025, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/HsEM172
#Post#: 102777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Smart parking ltd, unauthorised parking, Cardiff gate retail
park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 16, 2025, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
MCOL CPR16.4 only defence
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 ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page