Smart parking ltd

[Moore55.]

I need some advise I have received a court letter today Smart parking ltd claims I owe them money for a parking fine from Oct 2020. Firstly I wasn't the driver I've never been to the carpark they say I parked in. I did not receive any fine/correspondence notifying me they'd issued a parking fine until 2025 for £170. I ignored these 3 letters issued 2025 now I have a court claim against my name.

[des8]

So acknowledge the claim, but do not enter a defence at this point.

Send a Subject Access Request to Smart Parking, and a CPR31.14 letter to the solicitors acting for them
Templates can be found here:
https://legalbeagles.org/library/gui...ccess-request/
https://legalbeagles.org/library/gui...-of-documents/

When you receive a response, post them up here, and in the meantime can you post up a copy of the claim form, (first remove your identifying details and claim reference number)

[Moore55.]

Thank you, this is the court letter I received today

[des8]

The photo is a bit blurry, so can you post a clearer scan. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be

Would also like to see who has signed it.

[Moore55.]

Are these any clearer, both sides if not I'll redo them tomorrow in the daylight.

[des8]

I think I can make out most of it now thanks, but am a bit amazed at what appear to be errors (especially as the signature is that of a solicitor!)

Until a recent court case they were using odd bods to issue claims (as were lots of companies) and I wanted to check if they had corrected their procedures,

the possible errors: i) I cannot find an ANGOUAME Way Retail Park in Bury
ii)what is that date in para 2? it looks like 27/100020.. something out of Star Trek?
iii) para 3 what is a "Reacon"? What is "ineuFiciant paid tima"
iv) para 4 what is a "dofendent"

I haven't gone any further and perhaps I'm misreading the letters, but if what I have highlighted above is accurate your defence can be quite embarrassing for an "educated" solicitor

when/if you receive a reply to your letters, (or towards the end of November if no responses received) come back here and we can help you draft a defence

[des8]

Bit clearer, but still seem to be a number of errors.
Anyway forget that for the moment and send of those two letters as in post 2 asap.
When you get a reply post up here.
If no response received from DCBL or claimant give us a nudge around 25 Nov so we can help with your defence

In the meantime remove that last photo as it prominently features your name & address

[Moore55.]

Not sure how delete the image.

[des8]

EXC please could you delete the attachment in post 7 as it features OP's identity

[des8]

Moore55. have requested attachment removal by admin.
Have you received a response to your letters?

[EXC]

EXC please could you delete the attachment in post 7 as it features OP's identity

Done.

[des8]

EXC Thanks ..... don't you ever sleep?

[Moore55.]

Thank you, not received anything back in the post from either company. I sent both letters vi recorded delivery.

[Moore55.]

Not had any response from either letters, just need to send my defence

[des8]

Here's the sort of defence I would be using .
It is only a template which you should read carefully and amend where required
Do not use it blindly.
The sections in red need to be checked and corrected or bits inserted.
Where the claim form words have been misspelt (e.g."ineuFiciant Paid Tma) do use the exact misspelling as on the claim form. (as my copy is blurred I might have misread)
For the rest read & understand it

In the County Court Centre Claim No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Between

Smart Parking Limited (Claimant)

and

Ms ………. (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim No xxxxx from Smart Parking Ltd on dd.mm.2025
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimant's statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. . The Defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards to the claim, which appears to be for a parking charge levied for a breach of contract arising from a "ineuFiciant Paid Tma"(sic) at a location described as "Angouamsvnay Retail Park, Bury" (sic). The Defendant can find no trace of that location but assumes the Claimant is referring to "Angouleme Retail Park, Bury.
4. The alleged event is stated to have occurred on "27/1O0020" (sic) but the Defendant denies ever visiting that retail park.
5. The Defendant has never received a Notice to Keeper(NTK)/ Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The first communication the Defendant received about the alleged event was a letter dd.mm.2025 from DCBLegal Ltd which she assumed was a scam.
6. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting and spelling of the Particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors. If fuller description than is possible through MCOL is required, separate Particulars should be sent via letter or email and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused.
7. .On the DD/mm/YY the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant's statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 . No response has been received
   
   8 Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 toa)make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant .If the Claimant should comply with such an order, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment or.................................. (b)if the court considers it appropriate,(i) to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action and............................................... ......................................(ii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
8. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best she is able.
9. Defendant's liability as the driver of the vehicle
10. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver's identity.
11. However, the Defendant denies she was the driver and the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant's position that the Claimant's allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.
    13The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "for breach of the terms on the sogns (the contract) Reacon. ineuFiciant Paid Tma "(sic) but, has failed to provide a legible copy of the signs or the PCN/NTK
    
    Liability as registered keeper of the vehicle

11.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxx , reg. no. 1234,13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs nine and ten of this Defence
12.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i)Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii)Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver's identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only.
The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
"The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver's identity" (emphasis added)

!3 The Claimant has failed to supply a copies of the NTK or PCN so the Defendant is unable to ascertain if they comply with the conditions mandated by the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 to enable the claimant to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver to the registered keeper.

14.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimant provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case else the Claim should stand struck out.
15.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.

Recovery of Claimant's unspecified parking and damage charges

16. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of unspecified parking and damage charges in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the registered keeper for the following reasons:
(i)in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant repeats paragraphs 7 & 8 of this Defence

ii)in respect of liability as the driver the Defendant repeats paragraphs 7&8 of this Defence and notes that the sum claimed includes unspecified damages contrary to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where the maximum recoverable from a registered keeper is the amount of any unpaid parking charge.
The Claimant's pursuit of these unspecified additional damages (which may possibly be contractual costs depending on the signage)amounts to an abuse of process

17.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

sign and date