Unpaid CCJ letter received from DCBL today

remzeh1

Yes, all relating to same location - all for parking in my own bay in an underground residents car park

QDR went first which was the first CCJ

Then DCBL came with the LBC

Brilliant, thanks so much, I will look into that as well.

Drafting the WS as we speak.

B789

Something along the lines of this in your WS, near the beginning, if not already included may be useful:

The Claimant's conduct in issuing another claim, numbered XXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars (except for dates), for the same cause of action - PCNs that should have been pleaded in that claim - is a clear abuse of the civil litigation process. The first claim has resulted in significant damage to the Defendant's credit rating, as a default CCJ was obtained. Such actions, involving the filing of two separate claims by the same Claimant for essentially the same cause of action, undermine the integrity of the legal system and the principles of fairness and efficiency.

The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 firmly establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to present their entire case. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41, the court observed that cause of action estoppel applies when a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, involving the same parties or their privies and the same subject matter. This decision remains valid and has been cited approvingly in subsequent cases, including Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 and Henley v Bloom [2010] 1 WLR 1770.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out the second claim on the grounds of cause of action estoppel. Furthermore, the Court is invited to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for their filing of two abusive and exaggerated claims, which have unduly burdened the legal process

remzeh1

I've drafted my witness statement - yet to include anything regarding the estoppel though

@B789 thank you for providing the above, that looks good - where do you think it would be best to include in the WS

Here it is:

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXX, of XXX , will say as follows:

1.  I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 21/04/2023, in default due to a defective service of Claim.

2.  I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a letter to my usual primary residence on 06/06/2023 informing me that I had an unpaid CCJ. This is when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me at an incorrect address.

3.  The Claimant served the claim to an incorrect address, despite the fact that they knew my usual primary residence and knew they could reach me there. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my usual address.

5.  I have not received any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.

7.  I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed, I wish to have the opportunity to defend it properly as per CPR 13.3.

8.  I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

9. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 21/04/2023. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Control Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”).

10. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."  As I have not had any correspondence in relation to this matter, other than a letter informing me I have an unpaid CCJ on 06/06/2023 and the brief case details emailed to me from the courts following this on 07/06/2023, I am unsure of the specific dates that the claim was made. 

10.1 Nonetheless, it is clear from what I will outline below that the Claimant knew of my usual primary residence, which I note was also the last known residence they had of me, having been in contact with me there regarding two separate PCNs in January 2023. The Claimant was therefore clearly aware of my usual and last known residence and has no good reasoning in their failure to contact me there regarding this matter.

10.2 It is therefore clear that the Claimant did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find and use my correct address to serve the claim form. Had reasonable diligence been taken, the Claimant would have served the claim form to my usual primary residence, which was also my last known address, not an incorrect temporary residence where they had never been in contact with me previously. 

10.3 The Claimant did not have any contact with the defendant at the address where the claim was served, and thus should have considered they had obtained incorrect details and reverted to the usual and last known primary residence to serve the claim forms. 

10.4 It appears that the Claimant was still clearly aware of my usual primary residence given they then sent a letter dated 01/06/2023 (received on 06/06/2023) informing me I had an unpaid CCJ. 

10.5 Upon further investigation it then became clear to me that they sent all correspondence regarding this CCJ to an incorrect address and never contacted me at my usual primary residence.

11. The claim form was not served at my usual address, thus I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from the Claimant to the usual address on 06/06/2023 informing me I had an unpaid CCJ from the 21/04/2023; more than 30 days beyond the time period where I could have paid this off and prevented a CCJ. 

11.1 This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my usual and last known address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).

12. My usual address is NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, where I permanently reside. This has always been my permanent residence; it was when the parking charge was issued on 17/12/2019 and it still is now. This is why all previous correspondence had been received here, given the vehicle in relation to this matter was registered at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS at the time of the PCN being issued, as well as my driver’s license having always been registered there. This is the only address that the DVLA have ever known about because it is my usual primary residence.

12.1 This is also the last known address to the Claimant and the one they had always contacted me at, where they last received a response from myself there in January 2023 regarding two separate PCNs. Alongside this Witness Statement, I hereby provide the following evidence of my usual permanent residence, thereby evidencing that the Claimant was aware of this as the usual and last known address and should have sent the claim there:

i) Letter of Claim from DCB Legal Ltd on behalf of UK Parking Control Limited dated 16 January 2023, which was received on 23 January 2023, in relation to a separate PCN (ie this was NOT the Letter of Claim relating to the CCJ I am requesting to be set aside). (Exhibit 1)

ii) Evidence of payment of the above Letter of Claim, and therefore acknowledgement for the Claimant that they could contact me at the usual address, on 26 January 2023. (Exhibits 2 & 3)

iii) A Judgment for Claimant regarding claim number XXXXXXX from this same Claimant, received on 17/01/2023 - further evidence that all previous correspondence had gone to the usual address and the Claimant knew they could contact me at the usual address. (Exhibit 4)

iv) A Certificate of Satisfaction or Cancellation of Judgment Debt received from the County Court Business Centre on 18/02/2023 dated 16/02/2023, relating to the Judgment number XXXXXX, showing I requested the Court to send Court documents to the usual address, again evidencing this is clearly the usual primary residence. (Exhibit 5)

13. The address on the claim is LONDON ADDRESS, a temporary employment related address where the Claimant had never previously been in contact with me and therefore had no reason to believe they could reach me there.

13.1 Due to the nature of my employment, where I work as a Chartered Accountant, often on a contractual employment basis, I am required to work around the United Kingdom and will therefore often have a second employment related address, in addition to my primary residence. This is why soft searches may reveal addresses other than my usual primary residence.

13.2 As I relocate around the country quite often, I have never informed the Claimant of any other address and have never been in contact with them from any other address other than the usual primary residence at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS.

13.3 I can therefore confirm that I have no knowledge as to how the Claimant obtained details regarding my temporary residence at the LONDON ADDRESS, and would assume they must have done so using a soft search.

13.4 What I would say is that the Claimant had no reason at all to search for any other addresses when they knew fine well that they could contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, which was the last known address in January 2023 and the one they had known to have been my usual primary residence for over 3 years since the PCN was first issued. If they had taken due care then they would have clearly sent the claim to the usual primary residence.

13.5 No letters regarding this claim were ever received to the usual primary residence, therefore, the Claimant cannot say they were no longer able to contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS and had a justified reason to perform a search for any other address.

14. Most importantly, I must emphasise that whilst I may previously have been contactable at the LONDON ADDRESS whilst I lived there, I moved out of LONDON ADDRESS on 28/01/2023 and have provided evidence of this in the form of utility account closure on 28/01/2023 (Exhibit 6) and a signed contract for a new employment related address which I moved into on 05/02/2023 (Exhibit 7). 

14.1 I have never been back to the LONDON ADDRESS since moving out on 28/01/2023 and had no reason to believe the Claimant would contact me there given all contact had previously been via the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS and there was no reason to believe the Claimant even had knowledge of the LONDON ADDRESS.

15. The fact that there was no response to any letters sent to the LONDON ADDRESS should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there.

15.1 One would have thought that upon realising there was no response to this new claim, when there had been clear responses to previous claims to the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, that the Claimant would have reverted to attempting to contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, what they had always known as the usual primary residence. But this never occurred.

16. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address where they had never been in contact with me and had not received any positive confirmation from myself that I could be contacted there. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an incorrect address and an irregular judgment.

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

 

Statement of truth:

18. 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.

Signed:

remzeh1

Will await feedback on draft 1 - just from reading that after prior to posting, I think there are a few instances I need to rectify where I've mentioned the other PCNs, to coincide the rest of the WS with the additional parts I will add regarding the estoppel

Thanks everyone

B789

A lot of repetition in there. It may be worthwhile condensing it. Also, just number each paragraph sequentially with an integer.

Regarding the Henderson estoppel bit, put it just after the bit where you mention the incorrectly served claim.

B789

Here is a more condensed version with the Henderson argument included that you can adapt as necessary subject to others more knowledgeable than me in these matters confirming or advising differently:

WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I, XXX, of PRIMARY RESIDENCE, will say as follows:

2. I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me in default on 21/04/2023, due to a defective service of Claim thus breaching CPR 13.2(a).

3. I was not aware of any claim made against me until I received a letter addressed to me at my PRIMARY RESIDENCE from the debt recovery arm of the claimant's solicitors, DCBL, on 06/06/2023 informing me that I had an unpaid CCJ. This was when I found out the Claimant had obtained the CCJ by default as they had incorrectly served the claim to my TEMPORARY RESIDENCE.

4. The Claimant and, embarrassingly, their solicitors DCB Legal, were fully aware that the correct address for service for any claim should be to my usual PRIMARY RESIDENCE as they had already been in contact with me at that address regarding two separate PCNs issued for identical circumstances in January 2023.

5. I did not receive any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 3 above.

6. The Claimant's conduct in having issued another claim, numbered XXXX on [DATE], against me with substantially identical particulars (except for dates), for the same cause of action - PCNs that should have been pleaded in that claim - is a clear abuse of the civil litigation process. This claim has resulted in significant damage to the Defendant's credit rating, as a default CCJ was obtained. Such actions, involving the filing of two separate claims by the same Claimant for essentially the same cause of action, undermine the integrity of the legal system and the principles of fairness and efficiency.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

7. My primary address is NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, where I permanently reside. This address is on the vehicle's V5C logbook and is the address the Claimant would have received from the DVLA under the Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date Of an Event (KADOE) contract. It has been my permanent primary residence since before the PCN was issued in 2019. All previous correspondence from the Claimant had been received at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS.

8. The address on the claim is LONDON ADDRESS, a temporary employment-related address where the Claimant had never previously been in contact with me. They had no reason to believe they could reach me there.

9. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence." The Claimant knew my usual PRIMARY residence as they had been in contact with me there regarding previous PCNs in January 2023. Therefore, their failure to serve the claim form to my usual address is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a).

10. The Claimant did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" to find and use my correct address. The claim form should have been served to my usual primary residence, not an incorrect temporary residence where they had never had any contact with me.

11. The fact there was no response to any correspondence sent to the LONDON ADDRESS should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there. I believe the Claimant has not shown due diligence in using an address where they had never been in contact with me and had not received any positive confirmation from me that I could be contacted there. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an incorrect address and an irregular judgment.

CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL

12. The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 firmly establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to present their entire case. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41, the court observed that cause of action estoppel applies when a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, involving the same parties or their privies and the same subject matter. This decision remains valid and has been cited approvingly in subsequent cases, including Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 and Henley v Bloom [2010] 1 WLR 1770.

13. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, I respectfully request that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out the claim on the grounds of cause of action estoppel. Furthermore, the Court is invited to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for their filing of two abusive and exaggerated claims, which have unduly burdened the legal process.

14. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed, I wish to have the opportunity to defend it properly as per CPR 13.3.

15. According to publicly available information, the unregulated private parking industry's persistent failure to use correct addresses is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system.

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.

Signed: [Your Name]

Coupon-mad

That looks a bit short and doesn't include the case law about improper service that I think was in hallie's version(?) which is why I've been signposting people to it.

remzeh1

Okay

i’ll update today to include the stuff around estoppel and case law from improper service 

Ideally I will send it off tonight 

remzeh1

I can't see anything else in @hallie28 that is relevant for mine? As their case law is relating to DVLA addresses and the 4 months rule - neither of which are relevant in my case?

But I've updated for the estoppel as you'll see below, whilst it is slightly repetitive I feel like it gets the point across and I'm reluctant to condense it - yes there might be some repetition but it's still really clear what's happened and reinforces all the points - thoughts?....

@Coupo@Coupon-mad were you saying that mine still seems short or were you saying that about the suggested condensed version from @B789?

I will also write out the draft order now too....

remzeh1

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXX, of XXX , will say as follows:

1.  I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 21/04/2023, in default due to a defective service of Claim.

2.  I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a letter to my usual primary residence on 06/06/2023 informing me that I had an unpaid CCJ. This is when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me at an incorrect address.

3.  The Claimant served the claim to an incorrect address, despite the fact that they knew my usual primary residence and knew they could reach me there. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my usual address.

5.  I have not received any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.

6.         This is the second claim made against me by the Claimant; the first issued to the correct address as I will detail below. The Claimant's conduct in issuing this second claim against the Defendant, with substantially identical particulars (except for dates) for the same cause of action is a clear abuse of the civil litigation process because the parking charge within this claim should have been pleaded in the first claim.

7.         In light of the legal principles detailed below, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out the second claim on the grounds of cause of action estoppel.

8.  I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed, I wish to have the opportunity to defend it properly as per CPR 13.3.

9.  I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

10. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 21/04/2023. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Control Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”).

11. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."  As I have not had any correspondence in relation to this matter, other than a letter informing me I have an unpaid CCJ on 06/06/2023 and the brief case details emailed to me from the courts following this on 07/06/2023, I am unsure of the specific dates that the claim was made. 

11. Nonetheless, it is clear from what I will outline below that the Claimant knew of my usual primary residence, which I note was also the last known residence they had of me, having been in contact with me there regarding two other PCNs in January 2023. The Claimant was therefore clearly aware of my usual and last known residence and has no good reasoning in their failure to contact me there regarding this matter.

12. It is therefore clear that the Claimant did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find and use my correct address to serve the claim form. Had reasonable diligence been taken, the Claimant would have served the claim form to my usual primary residence, which was also my last known address, not an incorrect temporary residence where they had never been in contact with me previously. 

13. The Claimant did not have any contact with the defendant at the address where the claim was served, and thus should have considered they had obtained incorrect details and reverted to the usual and last known primary residence to serve the claim forms. 

14. It appears that the Claimant was still clearly aware of my usual primary residence given they then sent a letter dated 01/06/2023 (received on 06/06/2023) informing me I had an unpaid CCJ. 

15. Upon further investigation it then became clear to me that they sent all correspondence regarding this CCJ to an incorrect address and never contacted me at my usual primary residence.

16. The claim form was not served at my usual address, thus I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from the Claimant to the usual address on 06/06/2023 informing me I had an unpaid CCJ from the 21/04/2023; more than 30 days beyond the time period where I could have paid this off and prevented a CCJ. 

17. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my usual and last known address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).

18. My usual address is NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, where I permanently reside. This has always been my permanent residence; it was when the parking charge was issued on 17/12/2019 and it still is now. This is why all previous correspondence had been received here, given the vehicle in relation to this matter was registered at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS at the time of the PCN being issued, as well as my driver’s license having always been registered there (Exhibit 1). This is the only address that the DVLA have ever known about because it is my usual primary residence.

19. This is also the last known address to the Claimant and the one they had always contacted me at, where they last received a response from myself there in January 2023 regarding two other PCNs. Alongside this Witness Statement, I hereby provide the following evidence of my usual permanent residence, thereby evidencing that the Claimant was aware of this as the usual and last known address and should have sent the claim there:

i) Letter of Claim from DCB Legal Ltd on behalf of UK Parking Control Limited dated 16 January 2023, which was received on 23 January 2023, in relation to another PCN (ie this was NOT the Letter of Claim relating to the CCJ I am requesting to be set aside). (Exhibit 2)

ii) Evidence of payment of the above Letter of Claim, and therefore acknowledgement for the Claimant that they could contact me at the usual address, on 26 January 2023. (Exhibits 3 & 4)

iii) A Judgment for Claimant regarding claim number XXXXXXX from this same Claimant, received on 17/01/2023 - further evidence that all previous correspondence had gone to the usual address and the Claimant knew they could contact me at the usual address. (Exhibit 5)

iv) A Certificate of Satisfaction or Cancellation of Judgment Debt received from the County Court Business Centre on 18/02/2023 dated 16/02/2023, relating to the Judgment number XXXXXX, showing I requested the Court to send Court documents to the usual address, again evidencing this is clearly the usual primary residence. (Exhibit 6)

20. The address on the claim is LONDON ADDRESS, a temporary employment related address where the Claimant had never previously been in contact with me and therefore had no reason to believe they could reach me there.

21. Due to the nature of my employment, where I work as a Chartered Accountant, often on a contractual employment basis, I am required to work around the United Kingdom and will therefore often have a second employment related address, in addition to my primary residence. This is why soft searches may reveal addresses other than my usual primary residence.

22. As I relocate around the country quite often, I have never informed the Claimant of any other address and have never been in contact with them from any other address other than the usual primary residence at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS.

23. I can therefore confirm that I have no knowledge as to how the Claimant obtained details regarding my temporary residence at the LONDON ADDRESS, and would assume they must have done so using a soft search.

24. What I would say is that the Claimant had no reason at all to search for any other addresses when they knew fine well that they could contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, which was the last known address in January 2023 and the one they had known to have been my usual primary residence for over 3 years since the PCN was first issued. If they had taken due care then they would have clearly sent the claim to the usual primary residence.

25. No letters regarding this claim were ever received to the usual primary residence, therefore, the Claimant cannot say they were no longer able to contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS and had a justified reason to perform a search for any other address.

26. Most importantly, I must emphasise that whilst I may previously have been contactable at the LONDON ADDRESS whilst I lived there, I moved out of LONDON ADDRESS on 28/01/2023 and have provided evidence of this in the form of utility account closure on 28/01/2023 (Exhibit 7) and a signed contract for a new employment related address which I moved into on 05/02/2023 (Exhibit 8). 

27. I have never been back to the LONDON ADDRESS since moving out on 28/01/2023 and had no reason to believe the Claimant would contact me there given all contact had previously been via the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS and there was no reason to believe the Claimant even had knowledge of the LONDON ADDRESS.

28. The fact that there was no response to any letters sent to the LONDON ADDRESS should have alerted the Claimant to the possibility that I was not residing there.

29. One would have thought that upon realising there was no response to this new claim, when there had been clear responses to previous claims to the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, that the Claimant would have reverted to attempting to contact me at the NEWCASTLE ADDRESS, what they had always known as the usual primary residence. But this never occurred.

30. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address where they had never been in contact with me and had not received any positive confirmation from myself that I could be contacted there. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an incorrect address and an irregular judgment.

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

32. The Claimant's conduct in issuing another claim, numbered XXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars (except for dates), for the same cause of action is a clear abuse of the civil litigation process. The first claim has resulted in significant damage to the Defendant's credit rating, as a default CCJ was obtained. Such actions, involving the filing of two separate claims by the same Claimant for essentially the same cause of action, undermine the integrity of the legal system and the principles of fairness and efficiency.

33. The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 firmly establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to present their entire case. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41, the court observed that cause of action estoppel applies when a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, involving the same parties or their privies and the same subject matter. This decision remains valid and has been cited approvingly in subsequent cases, including Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc [2008] 1 WLR 748 and Henley v Bloom [2010] 1 WLR 1770.

34. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises its authority under CPR 3.4 2(b) to strike out the second claim on the grounds of cause of action estoppel. Furthermore, the Court is invited to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for their filing of two abusive and exaggerated claims, which have unduly burdened the legal process.

35. The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre-action protocols for debt claims, breaching the IPC code of practice and the CPRs about taking 'reasonable steps' (CPR 6.9) to check a Defendant's address.

36. If the Claimant believes they still have a claim then filing afresh is the only way forward. The Claimant may send a ‘Letter Before Claim’ to the right address, this time following the pre-action protocol for debt claims. The court is reminded that this Defendant has received nothing to build any defence on. No claim form and no detailed particulars of the claim have ever been sent to the Defendant’s current address.

37. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered this matter on 07/06/2023, contacted the court the next day on 08/06/2023 and have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case on 11/06/2023 after taking a few days to ensure all of the details were included.

38. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to demand reimbursement of the fee of £275 from the claimant should this request be successful.

Statement of truth:

39. 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.

Signed: