Help please - CCJ & Debt Recovery – from unknown Parking fine

Jack5656

So all I can say when quoting...

" ...no soft trace checks fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice and fails to satisfy the specific 'pre-action Protocol for debt claims' and is in breach of the CPRs about the obligation to take 'reasonable steps' to check a Defendant's address so that service is effective."

Is to highlight the protocol requiring a LBC to be sent - which C sent, but to the wrong place as they didn't check the address - so no reasonable endeavors as required by per CPR 6.9(3).

Coupon-mad

Yes but I don't see that you need to re-argue any of that, because you've already won the argument that the claim was not properly served.

This is ALL about the 4 months dead argument.

Jack5656

Thanks Coupon!

One thing bugging me - we have said (Piepenbrock v Associated News 2022) that:

"...as a result of his failure to validly to serve the Claim Form during its period of validity, it has now lapsed. The term “sanction” is inapt because it would, in theory, be possible for the Claimant to issue and validly serve a fresh Claim Form."

So the current claim is dead and striking it is no great  disaster for 'C' as they can file afresh... however during my research this week I came cross the following from Vinos vs Marks & Spencer which suggests a new claim is not  even possible???

"Four months is in most cases more than adequate for serving a claim form. There is nothing unjust in a system which says that, if you leave issuing proceedings to the last moment and then do not comply with this particular time requirement and do not satisfy the conditions in rule 7.6(3), your claim is lost and a new claim will be statute barred."

So which is correct - can they serve a fresh claim or not, or is it up to the Judge's discretion? Just wondering as if I have the current claim struck then could 'C' file afresh or can I also challenge that based on Vinos vs Marks & Spencer case? I know you said a new claim never happens but I think this is a point for clarification as it could influence the Judge in striking the claim if there is no option for a new claim.

Coupon-mad

They can file afresh if we are not yet past the period for it to be statute barred.  In the case of a contract it's 6 years from alleged breach (parking event).

In Vinos they'd left the claim till the last minute and by failing to serve it they were then statute barred (because time was up).

Jack5656

Hearing is done and the Claim is struck! (I didn’t get any costs though).

Massive thanks again to all who have been so helpful on this forum, especially Coupon Mad. I would never have gone through this process without your advice and support.

It was a very quick hearing as ‘C’ did not turn up. Judge said they had read my argument and I had clearly put a lot of effort in. They said the ‘C’ had not helped themselves by failing to respond/attend the hearing and also said that the ‘C’ had not responded as they needed to from the last order which asked what direction the ‘C’ wanted to take (something which should never have been offered in my view!).

The ‘C’ asked for the claim to carry on in smalls claims track but the Judge said that doesn’t do the job and ‘C’ should have applied for an extension of claim (CPR 7.6) if they intended to carry on with this claim. I’m not sure I agree with Judge’s view as after 4 months (and a few yrs!) time must be up. My understanding is that any extension must be applied for within the 4 months (CPR 7.5)?!

The Judge said he didn’t agree with my view that the Claim was dead – it was in its death throes but not dead. However it was an easy decision to strike this claim based on evidence and lack of input from ‘C’. I asked if that was the end of process but Judge said the ‘C’ could file afresh as have 6 years in total to pursue a claim. If they do file fresh the Judge said he could see an argument where I could claim abuse of process. But hopefully they won’t risk that!

Jenni_D

Apologies if this has already been confirmed ... what about your set-aside costs?

Jack5656

Jenni_D said:

Apologies if this has already been confirmed ... what about your set-aside costs?

I had my £275 application fee paid from the first hearing.

Coupon-mad

Slam.dunk!

Nicely done.

No idea why a canny Judge would not agree that an unserved claim is dead, after seeing your 4 authorities...but hey ho!

YOU WON ON ALL COUNTS!

You already had your £275 paid.

You already had the CCJ wiped.

You've now had the entire claim struck out.

You are highly unlikely to see CEL pick a new fight with you by trying to file afresh. Never seen it happen and you are certainly a thorn in their side, so they are almost certainly not planning on round two!

ANOTHER CEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

But don't leave us yet!

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

I've probably already banged on about this in your thread but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens later this year.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers! You have a personal story to tell about the undue rush to court and inflated claim amount, and what CEL do to people.

Jack5656

Well if CEL do come back and try to resurrect their claim I will be back here straight away to seek more advice. I can't see how they could be allowed another claim after their total failure to follow CPR 6.9 (3) four years ago!

Thanks again for all your expert help. I have bookmarked those threads.

TrippleGGG

Hello, this thread has been incredibly helpful. I'm in the same boat as @Jack5656. Just found out I had a CCJ to my name which was filed on 03 Nov 2022..... Don't ask me how I only realised a week ago - I'm a cash buyer type of buy, never deal in credit so my poor credit score never came to light. I only just managed to notice it and do a credit history search which notified me of my CCJ.

The below is what I currently have as my witness statement. Any advice would be appreciated

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1.         I am xx, and I am the Defendant in this matter. 

2.         This is my supporting statement to my application dated xx July 2025 requesting to:

a.         Set aside the default judgment dated 03 Nov 2022 as it was not properly served at my current address.

b.         Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c.         Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £313 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

3.         I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event.

4.         I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 03 Nov 2022. I am aware that the Claimant is Civil Enforcement Ltd and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from 21 July 2019.

5.         The claim form was not served at my current address, and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I signed up to Credit Karma on 08 July 2025 and did a credit history check. I have provided evidence of the ‘welcome’ email received from Credit Karma when I created an account dated to 08 July 2025. I then contacted the Civil National Business Centre and was informed of the details of the CCJ.

6.         The address on the claim is xx. I moved to my current address: xx on 22 June 2022 during which my bank account, council tax and utility bills have been registered to this address. In support of this, I have provided evidence of a bank statement registered to my current address.

7.         In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

  

SEQUENCE OF RECENT EVENTS

8.         I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgment against me when I noticed my poor credit rating on my Monzo mobile banking account in early July 2025. Further investigation led me to perform a credit history search using Credit Karma which informed me of the CCJ and the court name.

9.      On 09 July 2025, I contacted the Civil National Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment. I received an email containing the Particulars of the Claim.

10.      On 16 July 2025, I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

11.      I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details at the time of the claim. I was therefore denied the opportunity to defend the claim. 

12.      On that basis, I believe the Claimant has not adhered to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address that the Defendant no longer resides. The Claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence despite having 4.5 months to establish an address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.

13.      Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered.  Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside.

14.      Under Clause 24.1 C of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 8 (January 2020), “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.” The Claimant failed to take reasonable endeavours to ascertain my correct current address prior to issuing proceedings and is therefore in breach of the Code of Practice. 

15.       The Defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it. 

16.       Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is xx

17.      According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

18.      Furthermore, former Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. 

The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added, "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” 

19.      In the alternative, CPR 13.3 applies and there are very good reasons to set aside this exaggerated claim, which includes a disproportionate and indeed, false 'debt recovery' sum.  In fact, no debt recovery occurred nor cost the Claimant any money whatsoever, in addition to the alleged £160 parking charge.  The Government has described the false fixed 'fee' of £70 as 'designed to extort money from motorists' in the new statutory Code of Practice last February and has banned it.  The Defendant has good prospects of defending a claim, if served with one, but has seen no evidence, basis nor particulars of claim and the Claimant should be required to file afresh, if they believe they have a cause of action. 

20.      Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £313 from the claimant should this request be successful.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.