CCJ vs CP Plus Ltd (DCBL) Applying for Set-Aside

Coupon-mad

the Claimant is agreeable to have the Judgment set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3, on the basis that you pay the Judgment sum (£311.68) and Court fee (£123.00).

You can bet they would be 'agreeable' to that laughable attempt at unjust enrichment.

They'll be desperate to avoid having to (probably) be ordered to pay your £313 fee if your judge gets it right, as per VCS v Carr.  

Not_A_Hope

And also, how can the judgement have been "entered correctly" if I was "not in a position to respond" to the claim form?

Who are these people and why are they able to continue claiming to be solicitors?

Firstly they are trying to justify their claim and lack of due diligence that resulted in an unfair default judgment against you.

Many of these parking companies, debt collectors and the solicitors they use are no better than scammers without any conscience looking to increase profits by using the court system to bully people into paying.

NahkoMed

Hi all,

So *Finally* I have a court date. It took (I think) a total of 6 separate calls to CNBC, 3 resubmissions of my documents (nothing wrong with them, they just lost them twice) and finally, a formal complaint. By the end of it, even the claimant was emailing the court to ask where the documents were.

I submitted at the beginning of May!

Is there anything the forum thinks I need to do before this date? The instructions I've recevied don't suggest anything else is required. The claimant has picked up on the fact that I've used a different email address in my correspondence with them than I have on the application and have reqeuested confirmation of the address to use for service, any limits on it etc, but apart from that nothing has been asked of me. I did think I would have to submit a skeleton argument. Is that not the case?

I will, of course, keep you posted. Thanks again for all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

NahkoMed said:

Hi all,

So *Finally* I have a court date. It took (I think) a total of 6 separate calls to CNBC, 3 resubmissions of my documents (nothing wrong with them, they just lost them twice) and finally, a formal complaint. By the end of it, even the claimant was emailing the court to ask where the documents were.

I submitted at the beginning of May!

Is there anything the forum thinks I need to do before this date? The instructions I've recevied don't suggest anything else is required. The claimant has picked up on the fact that I've used a different email address in my correspondence with them than I have on the application and have reqeuested confirmation of the address to use for service, any limits on it etc, but apart from that nothing has been asked of me. I did think I would have to submit a skeleton argument. Is that not the case?

I will, of course, keep you posted. Thanks again for all your help so far.

This is your CCJ set aside hearing isn't it, in which case you have done your WS already. But did you have the transcript from the MAY 2025 final hearing in VCS v Carr?

If not, send a skeleton argument adducing it, along with your signed/dated costs assessment (a page with your costs on, for submitting the application and attending the hearing). You can copy another CCJ case skelly by searching the forum for:

Skeleton argument VCS Carr

Also, we are pleased you came back here in August - just in time to make a difference!

Here's how: On or before 5th September (end of next week) please please do the government's Public Consultation.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

NahkoMed

Great, thanks, will certainly do this.

NahkoMed

Hi again all,

I received the Witness statement from the DCBL rep for the hearing next week and I've decided to do a skeleton argument because they're claiming not to have received any evidence that I wasn't resident. The court did lose my application at least twice on the way here, so maybe they're not lying... but I doubt it!

They also claim to have done a trace 6 days before serving the claim in mid January, which I'm saying is impossible since I 100% updated everything you could wish for in December when I moved. They've provided no evidence. Is it, in fact, possible for a trace to return the old address still?

Finally, I'm obviously planning to attend in person, but the hearing is 3 days before the due date of my second child, so I may physically not be able to. Any advice about that other than what I've done below? After everything I've been through I was absolutely not prepared to try to apply for an adjournment, with additional £313 fee.

Here's my skeleton argument, referencing VCL vs Carr - I'll attach a transcript. Any other feedback greatfully recieved, and thanks to @Brightonrock123 for the skeleton of the skeleton.

Case number
M5KF5913
___________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT
___________________________________


1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated xxxxxxx pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3, and to strike out the claim.

1.2 The date of this hearing falls three days before the due date of my second child. In the event that I am unable to attend the hearing in person in order to attend the birth, I will notify the court of the same. Please accept these written arguments, and my witness statement, in my defence if this should happen.

1.3 The Defendant contends that:

- The claim was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, as it was sent to an address where the Defendant no longer resided, in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the Joint Professional Code of Practice to which the Claimant is obliged to adhere.

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION

2.1 Improper Service (CPR 13.2)

2.1.1 The court must set aside the judgment if it was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, which requires that an individual be served at their “usual or last known residence.”

2.1.2 The claim was sent to xxxxxxx, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at xxxxxxxx on 6th December, as evidenced by his tenancy agreement and council tax demand, submitted to the court as part of the initial application bundle on 1st May 2025, and again by email on 25th September.
2.1.3 In their witness statement, the Claimant’s representative claims that the defendant “…has failed to provide any supporting evidence to demonstrate that they were no longer residing at the address at the material time.” For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant today re-attaches this evidence, along with his original witness statement which clearly states the same.

2.1.4 The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. The Claimant relies upon a written notification of address for service they received in November 2023, more than a year before the claim was issued.
2.1.5 Further, the Representative claims that “…the Claimant took additional steps to locate the Defendant by conducting traces on 13/03/2024, 29/05/2024, 11/01/2025” but has failed to provide any evidence of this. The Defendant would, moreover, challenge him to do so, being certain that any trace conducted in January of this year would have, in fact, pointed to his current address since he diligently updated his details with Bank, DVLA, local authority, utility companies and letting agency as soon as he moved in December. 
2.1.4 This failure to ensure proper service mirrors the principles established in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where the court held that claimants must take reasonable steps to ensure service is effective. The court emphasised that serving a claim at an outdated address, without reasonable diligence, renders the judgment void. Initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing are provided as an appendix for the court’s reference.

2.2 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

2.2.1 If the court finds that, despite the wealth of evidence and precedent presented to the contrary, the claim was in fact properly served, the Judgment must still be set aside in accordance with CPR 13.3 because the following conditions are met: 
2.2.2 The defendant has a real prospect of defending the claim. As the below precedents show, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in this case. 
2.2.3 There are other “good reasons” to do so: The Claimant ignored initial approaches by the Defendant to resolve the matter well in advance of court proceedings, ignored very reasonable questions from the Defendant during the pre-action period, waited more than a year after sending the Letter of Claim to file a claim with the court and finally served that claim to an address where the Defendant could have no knowledge of it, and hence no opportunity to defend. 
2.2.4 The Defendant has applied promptly for a set-aside: He was initially made aware of the Judgment in a letter from DCB Ltd (a debt collection agency) at his current address on 11th April 2025, notified the Claimant of his intention to apply for set aside on 14th April 2025 and submitted an application for set-aside to the court after an waiting out the notice period provided to the Claimant, on 1st May 2025.
2.2.5 In making the decision to set-aside, the court should consider the overriding objective. Since the Defendant was not in receipt of the Claim Form or Particulars of the Claim, he has had no opportunity to defend it, and should, at the very least, be offered an opportunity to do so.
 

3. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

3.1 VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) 

3.1.1 The Court of Appeal in VCS Ltd v Carr held that claimants must take reasonable steps to ensure service is effective. The court emphasised that serving a claim at an outdated address, without reasonable diligence, renders the judgment void.
3.1.2 The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective, which requires the court to consider the justice of the case. The Defendant in this case was unable to defend the claim due to improper service, and the judgment should be set aside to avoid injustice.
3.1.3 The initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing is provided as an appendix for the court’s reference.

3.2 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)

3.2.1 In CEL v Chan, the court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5. The court held that the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case. A transcript is provided in the Defendant’s original exhibits pack at XX-02.

3.2.2 Similarly, in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach, rendering the claim defective and liable to be struck out.

3.3 CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024)

3.3.1 In CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a parking claim due to the Claimant’s failure to specify the nature of the breach in the particulars of claim. The court held that the Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case.

3.3.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach in the PoC, and the claim should be struck out.
 
4. RELIEF SOUGHT

4.1 The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 2nd February 2025, as it was not correctly served at the Defendant’s current address.

b. Strike out the claim for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5 or, in the alternative, as expired.

c. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £313 for the fee of making this application
6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Defendant respectfully submits that the default judgment should be set aside due to improper service, and the claim should be struck out as it is without merit and fails to comply with the CPR.

 

DATED: 1 October 2025

SIGNED: 

DEFENDANT

Not_A_Hope

2.1.3 In their witness statement, the Claimant’s representative claims that the defendant “…has failed to provide any supporting evidence to demonstrate that they were no longer residing at the address at the material time.” For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant today re-attaches this evidence, along with his original witness statement which clearly states the same.

2.1.4 The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. The Claimant relies upon a written notification of address for service they received in November 2023, more than a year before the claim was issued.
2.1.5 Further, the Representative claims that “…the Claimant took additional steps to locate the Defendant by conducting traces on 13/03/2024, 29/05/2024, 11/01/2025” but has failed to provide any evidence of this. The Defendant would, moreover, challenge him to do so, being certain that any trace conducted in January of this year would have, in fact, pointed to his current address since he diligently updated his details with Bank, DVLA, local authority, utility companies and letting agency as soon as he moved in December. 

Might want to check those paragraphs. First time I have heard of ‘his or a he’ imminently giving birth!,,,,

Coupon-mad

I'm a mum of four and am telling you from experience: you can't let that hearing date stand! You should have told the court your unavailable month as soon as the CNBC allocated the case.

Get consent from DCB Legal to vacate the hearing and have a later date. With consent the postponement is fee free.

NahkoMed

Not_A_Hope said:

2.1.3 In their witness statement, the Claimant’s representative claims that the defendant “…has failed to provide any supporting evidence to demonstrate that they were no longer residing at the address at the material time.” For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant today re-attaches this evidence, along with his original witness statement which clearly states the same.

2.1.4 The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. The Claimant relies upon a written notification of address for service they received in November 2023, more than a year before the claim was issued.
2.1.5 Further, the Representative claims that “…the Claimant took additional steps to locate the Defendant by conducting traces on 13/03/2024, 29/05/2024, 11/01/2025” but has failed to provide any evidence of this. The Defendant would, moreover, challenge him to do so, being certain that any trace conducted in January of this year would have, in fact, pointed to his current address since he diligently updated his details with Bank, DVLA, local authority, utility companies and letting agency as soon as he moved in December. 

Might want to check those paragraphs. First time I have heard of ‘his or a he’ imminently giving birth!,,,,

I'm the father... 

NahkoMed

Coupon-mad said:

I'm a mum of four and am telling you from experience: you can't let that hearing date stand! You should have told the court your unavailable month as soon as the CNBC allocated the case.

Get consent from DCB Legal to vacate the hearing and have a later date. With consent the postponement is fee free.

Thanks, I have tried. Even with consent the fee is £147 plus no guarantee that anything will actually change in time since the court functions so poorly. Also the deadline for that has already passed.