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

[des8]

A witness statement is meant to e a factual count of events, not a rehash of the defence.
However i doubt there is time to rewrite it, but I would remove any reference to the second claim. If you draw attention to it, DCBL might apply to amend the first claim
Where possible you should include numbered exhibits in support of your statements of fact


In the Defence 2nd claim you could point out that in In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the 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).

So In this claim unspecified charges additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )

You could add something along the lines of: "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"

Also note that :If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated damages/costs as claimed incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN are not recoverable.

[A4BZ]

Hi Des8 / all,

Thank you again for the detailed response — it was very helpful.

I have taken the points on board and amended the draft Defence for the second claim accordingly.

In direct response to the points raised, the second claim Defence now includes additional wording on:

• POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5), namely that if the Defendant is pursued as keeper, the maximum sum recoverable is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper;
• ParkingEye v Beavis, but only to distinguish it and make clear that Beavis concerned the enforceability of a clearly displayed parking charge, not later-added unspecified / duplicated sums;
• CPR 3.4(2)(b), on the basis that inflated / unspecified additional sums may amount to double recovery and/or abuse of process;
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections 62 and 68, plus Schedule 2 unfair terms points, in relation to transparency, fairness and any alleged term permitting additional costs;
• Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson as persuasive, non-binding authority on inflated parking claims / abuse of process;
• and the statement of truth has been updated to include the current contempt warning wording.

The Defence for the second claim remains based on:

• vague / insufficient Particulars;
• Henderson v Henderson / improper claim-splitting;
• request for strike-out / dismissal as abuse of process;
• no admission as driver;
• strict proof of POFA compliance;
• strict proof of signage / contract;
• strict proof of landowner authority;
• challenge to the £170 per PCN figure;
• strict proof of interest;
• and DCB’s failure/non-failure to provide documents requested under CPR 31.14.

Major update: DCB Legal have now emailed confirming that Smart Parking Limited has instructed them to discontinue the earlier/main claim, Claim No. M5KF2J8Z, and close their file.

This is the larger claim for £12,587.40, involving 53 alleged PCNs at St Paul’s Centre, Enfield, with alleged contravention dates between 7 December 2020 and 21 June 2022.

The email came from Alison Keenan, Case Manager at DCB Legal. She attached an N279 Notice of Discontinuance, signed by David Croot, who I understand is the COLP at DCB Legal, and stated that it has also been filed with the Court.

That claim had been listed for a CVP hearing on 2 July 2026 at Norwich County Court. Because the hearing is already on Andrew’s prison file, I have emailed Norwich County Court and copied CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk, attaching DCB’s email and the N279, asking the Court to confirm in writing that the claim is discontinued, the 2 July hearing is vacated, and Andrew is no longer required to attend by video link. I have specifically asked for written confirmation to be posted to Andrew at HMP Wormwood Scrubs so the prison has court-originated confirmation and does not move him unnecessarily between establishments for a hearing that is no longer taking place.

The remaining live issue is the second claim, Claim No. N5KF1F68. This was issued on 6 May 2026 for £2,204.04 and concerns 9 alleged PCNs involving the same Claimant, same Defendant, same solicitors, same vehicle, same location and same alleged parking scheme. The alleged contravention dates are between 27 June 2022 and 3 November 2022, so they start only six days after the period covered by the discontinued main claim.

Unless DCB / Smart discontinue the second claim in writing and provide an N279 for Claim No. N5KF1F68, the plan remains to file the Defence by Sunday 7 June 2026, because the deadline is Monday 8 June 2026.

My questions now are:

1. In light of the main claim being discontinued, should the second claim Defence still mention the discontinued earlier claim as the related proceedings for the Henderson / claim-splitting point?
2. Does the discontinuance of the larger earlier claim strengthen the position that the second claim should also be discontinued, or struck out / dismissed as improper claim-splitting / abuse of process?
3. Would it be sensible to email Alison Keenan at DCB Legal now, asking whether Smart will also discontinue Claim No. N5KF1F68 given that they have discontinued Claim No. M5KF2J8Z?

Regardless of whether it is prudent to write to Alison Keenan, I still intend to file the Defence on Sunday 7 June 2026 in readiness for the Monday 8 June 2026 deadline unless a formal Notice of Discontinuance for Claim No. N5KF1F68 is received before then.

Any thoughts on the best tactical approach would be appreciated.

[des8]

Good news about the first claim, but not surprised.

Regarding the second claim, do follow court instructions and do keep to the deadlines.
As the first claim has been discontinued you shouldn't reference Henderson, and there is now no claim splitting nor abuse of process.

I see no reason why you should not email Alison Keenan at DCB Legal asking whether Smart will also discontinue Claim No. N5KF1F68.
Do so on the basis of similar claim and you are looking to save court time and costs for all parties and head the email "without prejudice"