DCB Legal £9,000 Smart Parking Claim – Need Help Fighting Back

[A4BZ]

I don't have a solicitor on board due to financial restraints but i don't see any reason why i cannot add this to the defence especially with the aforementioned case referenced. It reinforces the point of each and every level of this process requiring scrutiny and being completed appropriately.

I will amend and get it added, thank you.

Is there any individuals you can tag or bring into this thread who can assist me with any other amendments I could make or add to the defence statement as all i am really stating currently is regarding poor signage back in 2020/2021, extenuating circumstances due to my partners brain injury and poor decision making/comprehension as well as the movement of 3 different addresses within the last 4 years, well 5 if you include the 2 prisons he has gone to. He is a good man and has never had problems with the law before, so I want to help him get out of this so he has a good start on release.

[des8]

It is difficult to see where any meaningful amendments could be made.
We haven't seen the defence that was filed, and that was where most advice can be given
You are applying to amend that defence, but we don't know enough of the background to comment

A good outcome would be if the judge strikes out the claim, or orders the claimant refile and re-serve by a person authorised to conduct reserved legal activities.
You will then be able to request copies of all documents they intend to rely on at trial.
It is quite likely that some of those documents are incorrect and so can be challenged

I also suspect that they have added on about £70 legal fees to each PCN to cover something like "additional charges" mentioned on the signs.
Those extras can be challenged, especially when multiple charges are involved.
However not having seen the signs (not legible on Google earth) I can't be sure of the wording

Others are looking at this thread, and am sure they will comment if they think they can add something to help

[A4BZ]

Thanks again to everyone who’s taken the time to help so far — I really appreciate the input and guidance.




Since my last post, I’ve received some further advice from another experienced individual who suggested that the amended defence should also raise the issue of keeper liability. They explained that Smart Parking’s notices are typically non-PoFA compliant, meaning they don’t meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore can’t transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. The advice was to keep this section concise but to put the claimant to strict proof of who the driver actually was, as there’s no lawful keeper liability if PoFA hasn’t been met.




So, the amended defence now includes:

• The no-keeper-liability argument under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4,
• A requirement that the claimant provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, and
• All of the existing points already covered (extenuating circumstances, multiple address changes, incarceration, brain injury, lack of signage, etc.).

For context, the original defence filed through MCOL was quite basic — it mainly outlined those extenuating circumstances, medical issues, signage concerns, and frequent address movements. I’ve re-expanded and formalised everything in the new amended defence that will accompany the N244.




I’ll attach the new draft defence here in case anyone wants to have a look and offer any thoughts, and I’ll also include the previous N244 draft defence further up this thread, which contained the same points that were originally included within the MCOL defence (extenuating circumstances, medical reasons, signage, address movements, etc.).




I’d be really grateful for any feedback on the inclusion of the PoFA/keeper-liability argument or any refinements to the litigation-authority section referencing Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341.




Thanks again for all your help — it’s been invaluable.

[A4BZ]

Heres a link to the amended N244 with your guidance as well as others and I’ve included the N181 as well.
https://we.tl/t-3MND9FEmYY

If anyone has a moment to glance over. The link expires in 3 days. Much appreciated thank you.

[des8]

Regarding keeper liability:

If anywhere along the line the driver has been identified, the claimant will not have to rely on keeper liability as the defendant is being pursued as the driver or keeper.

If the driver has not been identified the defence will need to show where on each and every Notice to Keeper the claimant failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012. It will not be sufficient just to "believe" they are not compliant.
From your account (para 15 of the defence) it seems not all NTKs were received.
When the claim was received was a CPR31.14 letter sent to claimant requesting copies of all documents they intend to rely on. This would have flushed out all NTKs so their compliance with PoFA2012 could have been checked.

If you do not have copies of those 52 NTKs you might have a problem with that defence
However not so Smart Parking do often make errors in their documents, and often discontinue cases before the hearing, so you might as well leave that section in ... it won't harm the defence

[A4BZ]

Whilst all NTKs from the claimant, smart parking LTD, may have been sent (not sure if they have proof of postage as they are generally sent regular 1st class post from my experience) they were definitely not received for the reasons staged within the amended defence to be sent alongside the N244 due to moving addresses 3 times in the last 4 years as well as 2 additional addresses for my partner in the last 2 years being the 2 prisons he’s been to.

I’ll leave it in there still as it’s for them to prove and they can’t prove he was the driver, he wouldn’t be able to recollect the driver anyways as these NTKs date back to 2021 and he suffered a TBI (traumatic brain injury) in 2023 which effected his memory amongst other aspects of his brain. This is also in the amended defence.

I have until Friday to email these all off along with the N181 so if anyone has any further input that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

[Velox59]

Hi A4BZ did you get to the bottom of whether the bulk litigation signatory on your partners claim was qualified or not. The same name is on a claim form for someone I am helping with DCB Legal matters. Tks

[A4BZ]

Hi all,




Just a quick update on where things currently stand, and I’d really appreciate any thoughts on the latest developments.




Because this thread has been inactive for a little while, by way of recap this is the Smart Parking / DCB Legal claim for around £12,587.40, arising from multiple ANPR parking charges originally pleaded at £9,010, with the remainder being made up of fees and add-ons.




The claim has now been allocated to the Small Claims Track and listed for a CVP hearing on 2 July 2026 at 2pm at Norwich County Court. The court has also made a further order confirming that, because my partner is in custody, his attendance at the final hearing is considered both necessary and desirable in the interests of justice, and that the prison is to make arrangements for him to attend by video link.




As set out previously, our position has been that:

• my partner has been in custody since February 2024
• he suffered a serious brain injury in October 2023
• there were multiple address changes over the relevant years, followed by moves through HMP Pentonville and now HMP High Point
• he did not receive most, if any, of the original notices reliably
• and he has no income or savings, with accounts/funds frozen by the police

We also raised the issue of Sarah Ensall’s authority to sign and issue litigation documents on behalf of DCB Legal, including the pre-completed N181 / Directions Questionnaire that was sent out on their side. Emails were sent on 27/09/2025 and again on 02/10/2025 to DCB (including to the COLP contacts we had at the time), specifically asking for written confirmation and documentary proof of her authority. We received no substantive response at all to those points.




The first actual response from DCB came much later, on 11 March 2026, from Holly Slater (Paralegal), asking for proof of my power of attorney and details of my partner’s sentence. Those were provided the same day.




Then, on 13 March 2026, DCB responded stating that their client is prepared to accept £5,000 in full and final settlement, instead of pursuing the full balance of £12,587.40, and asked for confirmation within 14 days if agreeable.




So this now leaves us with a few questions that I’d really appreciate views on:

1. What do people make of the £5,000 offer?
   To me, it suggests they do not feel entirely comfortable about recovering the full amount at hearing, but I’d welcome others’ views.
2. Does the Sarah Ensall / litigation-authority issue still have real force at this stage, particularly in light of the lack of any proper response and the recent authority already mentioned earlier in this thread?
3. How would people now prioritise the defence points?
   My understanding is that the strongest arguments remain:
   • no keeper liability / non-POFA compliance
   • strict proof of driver identity
   • inflated / unjustified add-ons
   • signage / contractual issues
   • and then the litigation-authority point as an additional procedural issue
4. Would anyone respond to the £5,000 offer at this stage, or simply continue preparing for hearing?
   We are not in a position to accept that figure.

I’ll attach:

• the recent Holly Slater / settlement email chain
• the earlier emails sent to DCB regarding Sarah Ensall’s authority
• the Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track hearing (N157)
• and the General Form of Judgment or Order (N24)

Any thoughts on where this now leaves matters would be really appreciated.




Thanks again for all the help so far.

[des8]

• no keeper liability / non-POFA compliance Note requirement to disclose all documents: so you should receive a copy of (1) contract authorising SMART to manage car park,(2) every PCN (3) Photos of signage where all words are legible. (you also need to submit )
• strict proof of driver identity especially if Andrew has no recollection and he can show others were insured to drive his vehicle
• inflated / unjustified add-ons in some past cases this has been sufficient to have the whole claim struck out by the court. (see below)
• signage / contractual issues The signs viewable on Google Earth deem to be forbidding (Patrons of St Pauls Centre only so anyone else is a trespasser) .You can't contract to do something which is forbidden
• and then the litigation-authority point as an additional procedural issue so no contract! may as well bring it up An appeal has been heard by the Supreme Court but the judgment is still awaited

It is possible that the hearing fee won't be paid
Pay attention to points 6,7&9 in the "Directions" (wording shown in 10(d) is out of date! )
Obviously follow instructions for CVP


Re add ons and inflated charges here is a template regarding those points, which you might find useful:

1. 7 The claim is for breach of contract.:
   
   Having obtained photographs of the signage at the indicated location, the Defendant avers the signage is firstly incapable of forming a contract.as it is forbidding in nature.
   The Defendant is mystified how one can contract to do that which is forbidden, and avers that even if the vehicle had been parked in the alleged
   location(which is not admitted and the claimant has provided no proof of the alleged event)) the resulting charge would be a penalty and not contractual
   
   8 Further it contains a term regarding additional costs and debt recovery charges. As the sign states the parking charge is £100 the Defendant deduces these charges have been included in the claimed amount (£170)
   
   Section 68 of the Consumer's Rights Act 2015 requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:
   
   a) the font size of the term is small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible considering the amount of blank space available on the sign itself; and
   
   b)the term refers to ‘charges’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
   
   c) It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).
   
   d) Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015
   
   e) .In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment)
2. f) Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown

Regarding their offer of settling at £5000:
Because of your circumstances needing to remortgage and desire to avoid a CCJ, you could try negotiating with DCBL, although I doubt they will reduce much further.
They are looking to get about £100 per PCN.
Note the requirement to try and resolve the matter before the hearing so it wouldn't harm your position to go back with a stupid offer ( e.g. £10 per pcn on the basis you want to avoid the costs of defending the case) and see where it leads.
If you do go down that road just make sure you head your letters "Without Prejudice"

Have you/Andrew written a witness statement yet?

[A4BZ]

Hi all,

Just another quick update as there have been some further developments since my last post.

Firstly, thank you again for all the help so far — it’s genuinely appreciated.

Since my previous update, I have now become aware that the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Mazur/CILEX litigation-authority appeal on 31 March 2026, overturning the earlier High Court position and effectively confirming that unauthorised persons/paralegals may conduct litigation under supervision on behalf of an authorised firm/solicitor.

In light of that, it seems the Sarah Ensall / litigation-authority point is now likely much weaker than it previously appeared, although I still note that no substantive response was ever provided by DCB to the earlier requests for clarification regarding authority and supervision.

More significantly, on 6 May 2026, a second completely separate claim form (N1SDT) was issued by the same Claimant and DCB Legal in relation to the exact same location (St Paul’s Centre, Enfield), this time for £2,204.04.

The particulars only state alleged contraventions between:
27/06/2022 and 03/11/2022.

An Acknowledgment of Service will be filed in relation to that second claim to protect position and ensure future correspondence is sent directly to my partner in prison rather than the old residential address.

At present, I still have not received in relation to the main claim for £12,587.40:
- the alleged PCNs,
- copies of Notices to Keeper,
- photographs/signage evidence,
- the landowner contract,
- or a breakdown showing exactly which PCNs form part of the claim.

That larger claim was allocated to the Small Claims Track by Notice of Allocation dated 4 March 2026 and remains listed for hearing on 2 July 2026 by CVP at Norwich County Court.

Given that there are now two separate claims from the same Claimant/legal representatives relating to the same site, I will also be seeking clarification from DCB Legal regarding the PCN references and dates relied upon in both matters.

My understanding at present is that the primary defence points now likely remain:
- no keeper liability / non-POFA compliance,
- strict proof of driver identity,
- inflated and unjustified add-ons,
- signage / contractual issues,
- and potentially any issues arising from fragmentation of claims once the full PCN schedules become clear.

The Claimant still has until 4 June 2026 to pay the hearing fee in the main claim.

I understand that if the hearing proceeds, the witness statement/evidence stage will likely become important around mid-June once disclosure is exchanged.

Does this still sound like the correct overall strategic/procedural approach at this stage?

Particularly interested in thoughts regarding:
- the second claim,
- whether requesting clarification of all PCN dates/references now is sensible,
- and how people would approach matters moving forward pending disclosure.

Thanks again everyone.

[A4BZ]

Just to add one further point following the above, one of the biggest concerns here is the long-term impact of potential CCJs.

Whilst my partner is currently incarcerated and has no meaningful ability to pay large sums, we have worked very hard to maintain his credit position and overall financial stability as much as possible during this period. His credit score currently remains relatively strong (around 1100/1250), and the concern is that one or more CCJs of this scale could severely impact his ability to rebuild life properly on release in future years, particularly regarding housing, finance and general rehabilitation.

That is partly why I am trying to approach this in the most organised and procedurally correct way possible, rather than simply ignoring matters.

Again, any thoughts on the best way to navigate this overall situation are genuinely appreciated.

[des8]

Re the second claim send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL for ALL the documentation they will rely upon in court.

Other than that I have no advice, although I wonder if the claimant would be amenable to applying to the court to amend his original claim to include this new one.
Perhaps others reading this thread might have some advice

[A4BZ]

Hi Des8 / all,

Thank you for the replies and advice so far.

I have now checked both claim forms properly and can confirm the position more clearly.

The main claim is Claim No. M5KF2J8Z. It was issued on 5 August 2025 and is for £12,587.40. The Particulars state that it relates to 53 PCNs issued to vehicle registration BU70SYE at St Paul’s Centre, Enfield, with alleged contravention dates between 7 December 2020 and 21 June 2022. The reason stated is “unauthorised parking”. The Particulars state £9,010 being the total of the PCNs and damages, which works out as £170 per PCN, plus interest, court fee and legal representative costs.

The second claim is Claim No. N5KF1F68. It was issued on 6 May 2026 and is for £2,204.04. The Particulars state that it relates to 9 PCNs for the same vehicle, same site, same Claimant and same solicitors, with alleged contravention dates between 27 June 2022 and 3 November 2022. Again, the reason stated is “unauthorised parking”. The Particulars state £1,530 being the total of the PCNs and damages, again working out as £170 per PCN, plus interest, court fee and legal representative costs.

So, on the face of the Particulars, the two claims do not appear to directly duplicate dates. However, the second claim starts only six days after the period covered by the first claim ends, and all 9 PCNs in the second claim clearly existed before the first claim was issued in August 2025.

Following your suggestion, I am now sending DCB Legal a CPR 31.14 request in relation to the second claim, asking for:

- the 9 PCNs / Notices to Keeper;
- PCN reference numbers and dates;
- ANPR images;
- signage;
- landowner authority/contract;
- POFA Schedule 4 documents;
- a full breakdown of the £2,204.04 claimed;
- and confirmation that these 9 PCNs are entirely separate from the 53 PCNs in the main claim.

I have asked DCB Legal to provide the documents by close of business on Thursday 4 June 2026 due to the live defence deadline. As the second claim was issued on 6 May 2026 and AOS has been filed, I understand the defence deadline is likely to be around Monday 8 June 2026.

If DCB do not respond to the CPR 31.14 request by 4 June, would people suggest simply pleading their non-response in the defence, or is there any merit in making any application to the court / notifying the court before the defence deadline? My current thinking is that the safer course is probably to file the defence on time and include DCB’s failure to provide the requested documents as part of the defence.

My current understanding is that the second claim should include a Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting point, because the same Claimant, same solicitor, same vehicle, same location and same alleged parking scheme are involved, and all 9 PCNs in the second claim already existed before the first claim was issued.

I would be grateful for any thoughts on:

1. whether Henderson / claim-splitting should be pleaded strongly in the second defence;
2. whether it is worth asking within the defence for the second claim to be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process;
3. whether CPR 31.14 is the correct route at this stage for the second claim;
4. whether DCB’s non-response, if they ignore the CPR request, should simply be pleaded in the defence;
5. and whether the £170 per PCN figure should be challenged as inflated/additional sums, subject to the Claimant proving the original contractual charge and legal basis for any added amount.

Separately, regarding the main claim M5KF2J8Z, the hearing fee deadline is 4 June 2026 and the final hearing is currently listed for 2 July 2026 by CVP. A production/video-link order was made on 12 March 2026 for my partner to attend remotely from custody. The very next day, on 13 March 2026, Holly Slater at DCB Legal emailed offering to settle the £12,587.40 claim for £5,000.

I appreciate that may not prove anything legally, but the timing seems quite telling commercially, given it came straight after the court made arrangements for my partner’s attendance from custody.

Would Henderson / claim-splitting be worth mentioning at all in the main claim witness statement/defence position as background conduct, or should it be kept mainly for the second claim defence?

Thanks again for all the help.

[des8]

1. whether Henderson / claim-splitting should be pleaded strongly in the second defence Why not ?
2. whether it is worth asking within the defence for the second claim to be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process; that follows
3. whether CPR 31.14 is the correct route at this stage for the second claim; Yes
4. whether DCB’s non-response, if they ignore the CPR request, should simply be pleaded in the defence; Should certainly be mentioned on basis that if defendant hasn't been given full information he can't provide a complete defence and at very least claimant should meet Defendant's extra costs if he needs to amend his defence
5. and whether the £170 per PCN figure should be challenged as inflated/additional sums, subject to the Claimant proving the original contractual charge and legal basis for any added amount.
Probably there is also an argument that the signs state something about additional costs/charges which is not clear and so not binding upon the defendant
Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.( CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
Only referring to unspecified additional costs is not trans etc
See also CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14) and consequently section 62 of the CRA2015)


If you mention the Henderson argument in the upcoming hearing the judge might allow/ order the first claim be amended

[A4BZ]

Hi Des8 / all,

Thank you again for the reply. I have taken the points on board and have now prepared a draft Defence for the second claim.

The second claim is Claim No. N5KF1F68, issued on 6 May 2026, for £2,204.04. I understand the defence deadline is likely to be Monday 8 June 2026, so my intention is to file the Defence no later than Sunday 7 June 2026 to avoid cutting it fine.

The draft Defence currently includes the following points:

• insufficient / vague Particulars of Claim;
• Henderson v Henderson / abuse of process / improper claim-splitting;
• request that the second claim be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process;
• same Claimant, same solicitors, same Defendant, same vehicle, same location and same alleged parking scheme as the earlier claim;
• all 9 PCNs in the second claim existed before the first claim was issued on 5 August 2025;
• no admission as driver;
• strict proof of POFA Schedule 4 compliance;
• strict proof of signage and contractual terms;
• strict proof of landowner authority;
• challenge to the £170 per PCN figure / inflated sums;
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections 62 and 68, including transparency / fairness of any alleged term allowing additional costs;
• strict proof of interest calculation;
• and DCB’s failure/non-failure to provide documents following the CPR 31.14 request, depending on whether they respond before the defence is filed.

I have attached the draft Defence and would be grateful for any thoughts before I file it. In particular, I would appreciate views on whether the Henderson / claim-splitting wording is strong enough, and whether the request for strike-out/dismissal is framed correctly.

Separately, following the AOS being filed for Claim No. N5KF1F68 on 18 May 2026, DCB Legal wrote again to the residential address requesting written authority for me to act on Andrew’s behalf. Their letter is dated 22 May 2026 and the DCB reference is 711201103641SMP. I assume this relates to the second claim, as the DCB reference is different from the earlier/main claim reference.

I did not simply sign and return the slip without context. Instead, I emailed DCB on 1 June 2026, attaching the Power of Attorney / authority documents and making clear that I am authorised to assist Andrew because of his incarceration. However, I also made clear that this does not mean DCB should continue sending case correspondence to the residential address.

I explained that DCB and the Court have already been informed numerous times that Andrew is in custody and that all documents, evidence and correspondence must be sent directly to his custodial address. This has been raised previously in correspondence with DCB, including around October 2025, and again in the March 2026 correspondence with Holly Slater. The Court has also been informed of Andrew’s custodial address and prison movement position.

The concern is that DCB continuing to send correspondence to the residential address is creating unnecessary procedural difficulty. Andrew cannot personally receive documents at the flat. He needs documents sent directly to him in custody so that he can properly understand and defend the proceedings himself. I have also informed DCB that Andrew may be moved between prison establishments again and that any further custodial address will be notified once known.

On the earlier/main claim, Claim No. M5KF2J8Z, the hearing fee is due by 4 June 2026 and the final hearing is currently listed for 2 July 2026 by CVP at Norwich County Court. A draft witness statement has also been prepared for that claim, but it will need to be amended once/if the Claimant pays the hearing fee and serves its evidence bundle.

In that main-claim witness statement, Henderson / claim-splitting is mentioned only as background conduct and proportionality, not as an invitation for the Court to add the second claim PCNs into the first claim. The wording currently says, in effect, that Andrew does not ask the Court at the final hearing of the first claim to add or determine the separate PCNs pleaded in Claim No. N5KF1F68, and that the second claim is raised only as background to the Claimant’s litigation conduct, proportionality and the procedural difficulty caused by fragmented proceedings.

Does that sound like the correct strategic approach — i.e. plead Henderson strongly in the second claim Defence, but keep it as background only in the main claim witness statement?

Any thoughts on the attached second-claim Defence before filing would be really appreciated.

Thanks again for the continued help.