Out of the Blue: CCJ Debt letter (for an alleged pcn) – dcbl (/UK Parking Control ltd)

Le_Kirk

You have the letter but it looks like an order of sometime in December has been set aside (did you get that order, was it a judgment in default or a missed hearing) and your application to hear the set-aside will be sometime in January (can't tell as you put xx instead of dates)

Char_LoT3

Thanks Le_Kirk

This is the only letter I have had since making the set aside request.  I wasn't sure if wise to post the dates in the letter.

Letter is dates 29th May 2025
 
1. is 2nd December 2024

2. is 14th January

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Char_LoT3 said:

Claim No: xxxxxxx

Claimant: UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

Judgment amount: 277.xx

 

Particulars of claim:

1.THE DEFENDANT(D) IS INDEBTED TO THE        CLAIMANT(C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(PCN) ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE *REG* AT CENTURY RETAIL     PARK, DALTON WAY WATFORD WD17 2SF.         

2.THE PCN DETAILS ARE 0X/03/2023,            *PCN NUMBER*                               

3.THE PCN WAS ISSUED ON PRIVATE LAND, WHICH  IS MANAGED BY C.                            

4.THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN BREACH OF TERMS  AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY SIGNAGE (THE      CONTRACT), RESULTING IN THE PCN.             

5.THE DRIVER AGREED TO PAY WITHIN 28 DAYS BUTDID NOT; D IS LIABLE AS THE KEEPER.  DESPITE REQUESTS, THE PCN IS OUTSTANDING.            

6.THE C CLAIMS £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE   PCN AND DAMAGES.                             

7.C CLAIMS COSTS AND COURT FEES.             THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS INTEREST UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% A YEAR FROM 08/03/2023 TO 13/09/2023 ON   £170.00 AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE SAME        RATE UP TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT OR EARLIER   PAYMENT AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.02.

( Edited to try and sort the formatting of the PoC )

This hearing is to hear your application to set aside the CCJ. Seize your moment! I would file & serve a skeleton argument bring in the new 2025 case law:

VCS v Carr

and

CEL v Chan

and

CPMS v Akande

and

Mazur v Speechlys

...and file & serve a fresh Draft Order requiring the whole claim to be struck out based on any of the above authorities or because the Particulars of Claim were not served by the 4 month deadline after the claim was filed.

Read the most recent CCJ set aside thread you can find by searching, that includes all those new authorities.

Char_LoT3

Thanks for the reply Coupon_mad,

How long do I have to get the skeleton argument and fresh Draft Order in ( with a mid Jan hearing) ?

Also any chance you could give me any hints what to be searching for, most ccj set aside's I can find are a few years old?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Change your search to NEWEST.

A skelly can be submitted the week before.

Char_LoT3

Thanks Coupon-mad, I had tired already tried changing sorting from best match to newest, not sure on my search words though, will keep trying,

I did look up gizzy6791's thread (who posted above on my one above) which seemed current and fairly similar, is this a good starting point for my skeleton argument? 

What I have read seems like the cases are usually getting put back to initial claim stage rather than been thrown out as the case law suggests they maybe should be?  Is that the case?

Also I am assuming I can introduce the new case law in my skeleton argument as it is newer than my original WS, I have read a few threads that sounded like (if I have understood properly) the absents from the original WS was an issue.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

What I have read seems like the cases are usually getting put back to initial claim stage rather than been thrown out as the case law suggests they maybe should be?  Is that the case?

No. There have been some like that, but...

Most see the whole claim dismissed now.

But it is about how robustly you tell the Judge about VCS v Carr and the fact "the claim has expired unserved & the court has no power to revive it."

Char_LoT3

Happy New Year one and all !

Here is my first draft skeleton argument draft, and I would appreciate any comments, guidance or pointers that I am completely off of the right track etc..  Hopefully understanding some of this now, but still very much in information overload (it's mainly my partner that has been looking at this for me as, and he has not had the best of Christmases: ex partner causing trouble = not seeing his kids...  Hence it's taken longer to get an understanding of this.  Also I am hoping he will be able to speak for me in court, I believe I had requested assistance).

Here is what I have so far:

-----------------------

1. Introduction

 1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated XX/XX/XXXX, Reference: pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3, and to strike out the claim pursuant to VCS Ltd v Carr (4th March 2025, Court of appeal).

 

1.2 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 British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

- The defendants lack of response to ANY correspondence from the clamant, up to and including pre court action (Letter before Claim) should have reasonably put the clamant on notice that the address was likely not current and suitable to serve the claim, therefor requiring further reasonably steps to be taken to ensure proper service of claim.

- The claimant demonstrated that they could have easily found the defendant’s current address to properly serve the clam and thus could have easily complied with CPR 6.9, having very quickly sent notice of Debt recovery to the correct address, once a default CCJ had been obtained in the defendant’s absence.  Additionally, this appears to be a common method of operation used by the clamant to obtain default judgments.

- The claim is without merit, as the Defendant has evidence demonstrating the weather on the day in question (snow and ice), along with evidence of the defendant’s health and disability’s, with respect to protected characteristics under The Equality Act 2010.

- Pursuant to VCS Ltd v Carr (4th March 2025, Court of appeal), the claim has expired unserved & the court has no power to revive it.

 

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.”  A single check with the DVLA not been sufficient to establish this.

2.1.2 The claim was sent to XXXX, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to her current address around XXXX, as evidenced by utility bill dated: XX/XX/XXXX.

2.1.3 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. A simple and inexpensive “soft trace” (costing around 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant’s current address.

2.1.4 This failure 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 separately for the court’s reference: Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWCA Civ 713 (points. 39).

 

2.2 The Claim has expired unserved (CPR 7.5(1))

2.2.1 Pursuant to VCS Ltd v Carr (4th March 2025, Court of appeal),  ) the claim has expired unserved & the court has no power to revive it and thus should be dismissed in its entirety.

 

2.3 Particulars of Claim

2.3.1 The Particulars of Claim in this case do not set out the breach of contract that allegedly occurred.  Pursuant to both 1/Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) & 2/3 CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024), the court struck out these claims 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, and is mirrored here.

 

2.4 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

2.4.1 Even if service is deemed valid, the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Defendant has evidence that the day in question had very adverse weather (snow and ice), along with evidence of the defendant’s health and disability’s, with respect to protected characteristics under The Equality Act 2010.

2.4.2 The claim is therefore without merit, and the Defendant should be given the opportunity to defend it properly.

 

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 separately 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.

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, 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 XXXX, 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.

c. Strike out the claim for failing to comply with claim was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9

d. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £303 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: 

 SIGNED: 

DEFENDANT

REFERENCES

- VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

 - VCS Ltv v Carr Official CoA hearing video URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs

 - Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

 - CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

Coupon-mad

"pursuant to VCS Ltd v Carr (4th March 2025, Court of appeal)"

No. the final hearing was in May.

Char_LoT3

Coupon-mad said:

"pursuant to VCS Ltd v Carr (4th March 2025, Court of appeal)"

No. the final hearing was in May.

Thanks for the reply Coupon-mad,  The document I am looking at (Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Civ 713) has 11th June 2025 at the top and 4th March 2025 as the hearing date.  I had assumed the hearing date was relevant.

Reading again, below the hearing date it has 'This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 11 June 2025'   Would this be the correct date to use, I can't see a May 2025 date?

Thanks