Classic CCJ from CEL - Defence post set aside

Coupon-mad

Just want to confirm that the original PCN would be £100, and that they have added exactly £70 for 'damages'? 

Yes. The PCN was £100 but there was an early payment discount which would have made it £60 if paid within 14 days.  That is what CEL tried to tempt you to cough up.

tuna460

Ok so subject to the below changes, I believe I am ready to submit:

68.      Upon reviewing the claim, I have identified several discrepancies, including an unjustified debt recovery charge of £70 added by a third-party debt collector, not a party to the original contract allegedly breached. The claimant is incorrectly claiming interest on both the original sum of £100 and this additional £70 charge, resulting in an inflated claim amount. Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original PCN issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process breaching CPR 3.4(2) and should be struck out.

69.     There is a further abuse of process in that the amount of interest applied has been miscalculated. Even if the claimant was allowed to claim interest on £170, 8% per year flat interest from due date 29/07/2022 to 17/11/23 (476 days or 1.304 years) x 0.08 x £170 would result in £17.73 interest, £1.09 below the amount on the POC.

70.     Whilst seemingly minimal, this overcharge affects the total amount claimed and raises concerns about the accuracy and good faith of the claimant’s case and constitutes an abuse of process. By inflating the interest amount, the claimant is misusing the court process to claim more than what is legally and factually justified. This undermines the integrity of the legal process and places an undue burden on the defendant.

71.     I understand that the claim made by the claimant is supported by a statement of truth, asserting the accuracy of the information presented. Providing inaccurate information in the form of an inflated claim breach of the requirement for accuracy in statements of truth in CPR 22.1.

72.     Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs (including this one) there is clearly an abuse by parking claimants who were said by the CJC to be the main perpetrators. The added fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £70 'damages/fee' and inflated interest both appear to be for the profit of CEL and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN.  I hope the court formally warns or sanctions CEL as the court sees fit.  I see this as 'vexatious litigation' and there has been a totally unreasonable course of litigation conduct from start to finish.  I contend that I must succeed in getting all my costs awarded, including the court fees (£303 for the application) and for travel to and attendance at the application hearing(s).

SET ASIDE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROMPTLY ... 

Just on filling out my N244:

Is this okay for Box 3 - An order that the judgement in default is set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2, alternatively 13.3, and the defendant be allowed to file a defence in the case. The defendant only discovered the judgment when they recieved a letter from the Claimant's legal team on XX/XX/XX and acted promptly in making this application.

And I saw on zbubuman's thread that the Draft Order should be submitted with the dates blank? Have I misunderstood or should it really be submitted with [date] in place of the dates?

Coupon-mad

Yes: blank dates on a Draft Order. Not saved as a PDF.  It's a Word Doc for a Judge to use.

NO not this phrase:
"and the defendant be allowed to file a defence in the case."

You need to mirror what your Draft order is asking for: claim struck out.

tuna460

Oh sorry that was an obvious oversight

Le_Kirk

It is OK to put the correct date of the CCJ but otherwise blank for the judge to complete.

tuna460

Several "lost" applications by the CNBC later, finally have a hearing set for 4/4/25. 

I wiill be drafting a skeleton argument to include the new VCS v Carr case, as well as CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

In the meantime CEL have produced another offer below, interestingly they seem to have forgotten that they in fact did offer me something similar back in June which I already rejected.

We refer to your application to set aside Judgment which has been forwarded to us by xxx County Court. We note your grounds for setting aside Judgment. As you do not deny parking at the location, it is our position that your application to set aside judgment will be refused.

Even if the application is granted, it is our intention to proceed with the claim against you. However, bearing in mind this process can take time and will incur unnecessary costs for both parties, we will consent to setting aside judgment (to remove it from your record) and to discontinue the claim against you, if you agree to pay the original £100.00 parking charge plus the administration costs and fees we have incurred in trying to recover payment of the PCN, limited to £35.00, making a total of £135.00. Each party will bear its own costs of this application.

We would have made a similar offer to you had you contacted us prior to lodging your application with the Court. Please confirm in writing by 28/3/2025 that you agree to accept this offer. If the offer is not accepted, we reserve the right to show this letter to the judge on the issue of who should pay the costs of your application.

Obviously I will not be accepting this even worse offer.

As you do not deny parking at the location, it is our position that your application to set aside judgment will be refused. Even if the application is granted, it is our intention to proceed with the claim against you.

Empty threat or something to consider? Because I still haven't really proven I have a real prospect of defending the claim should discretionary set aside CPR 13.3 come into play.

The only thing I have found is where I stayed 12 minutes over the maximum and the BPA CoP section 13.3 requires a grace period of AT LEAST 10 minutes. However 13.6 states "there is no requirement to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period" so is that argument null?

Is there anything like this regarding an actual defence I should mention in response to CEL or in the skeleton? Or simply work on the assumption the claim will be struck out per Chan and Akande?

Coupon-mad

Empty threat!

The only thing I have found is where I stayed 12 minutes over the maximum and the BPA CoP section 13.3 requires a grace period of AT LEAST 10 minutes. However 13.6 states "there is no requirement to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period" so is that argument null?
Is there anything like this regarding an actual defence I should mention?

Quote the DLUHC 2022 withdrawn Code of Practice to say that Parliament defined a 'parking period' as (then quote the Definition near the start of that CoP). You have to be allowed time to drive in and find a space then read the signs BEFORE the contract starts. The current Government is about to resurrect the Code. The industry's own version is self serving trash.

tuna460

Here is my draft skeleton argument:

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

CASE NUMBER: xxxx 

BETWEEN: 

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant) 

- and - 

xxxx (Defendant) 

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT 

DATE: xxxx 

  

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

1.2 The Defendant contends that: 

1.2.1 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 (CoP).

1.2.2 The claim is without merit, as the parking duration was only 12 minutes over the limit, and both the BPA and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) CoP require minimum consideration and grace periods.  

  

2. IMPROPER SERVICE (CPR 13.2) 

2.1 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.” 

2.2 The claim was sent to xxxx, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at xxxx in xxxx, as evidenced by his tenancy agreement and utility bills (Exhibit xx). 

2.3 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 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant’s current address.   

2.4 This failure mirrors the principles established in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), A YouTube video of the live hearing is linked in the references and attached. A transcript of the preliminary decision by the CoA to allow Mr Carr to appeal is attached separately. 

2.5 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.  

2.6 The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective in CPR 13.3, 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. DISCRETIONARY SET ASIDE (CPR 13.3) 

3.1 Even if service is deemed valid, the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. As seen in the POC (Exhibit xx), the duration of “parking” was 102 minutes, 12 minutes over the maximum of 90 minutes.  

3.2 The Claimant has failed to acknowledge the “consideration period” that is required to ensure a driver has enough time to drive into a car park, find a space and read the signs before a contract has started. 

3.3 Parliament agrees. The Claimant has ignored the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 first published by the DLUHC in February 2022, due to be finalised after a Judicial Review delay engineered by the parking industry, who did not object to the following clause which remains unchanged: 

3.4 Clause 2.24 defines a parking period as: "the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired ... This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land." 

3.5 As seen in Annex B Table B.1 of the same CoP, a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes and a grace period of 10 minutes should have been applied. Had they been followed correctly, there would have been no violation. 

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

  

4. CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT  

4.1 This case mirrors that of Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court. A transcript of the hearing is attached separately. 

4.1.1 In CEL v Chan, the court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) 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. 

4.1.2 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. 

4.2 The same sentiment was seen in Car Park Management Services Ltd (CPMS) v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court. A transcript of the hearing is attached separately. 

4.2.1 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. 

4.2.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach, and the claim should be struck out. 

  

5. RELIEF SOUGHT 

5.1 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. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £303 for the fee of making this application. 

6. COSTS 

6.1 In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks: 

   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and 

   (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

6.2 While not specific to lost earnings, it’s worth noting a key Court of Appeal case Dammermann v. Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 regarding small claims costs. 

6.3 This case clarified the “unreasonable conduct” exception in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Normally, apart from the fixed costs (fees, travel, up to £95/day loss of earnings, etc.), no further costs are awarded. However, rule 27.14(2)(g) says the court may order a party who has behaved unreasonably to pay further costs. In Dammermann, the Court of Appeal emphasized that “unreasonable” is a high bar: “conduct cannot be described as being unreasonable simply because it leads in the event to an unsuccessful result… The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course adopted may not be unreasonable.” 

6.4 This means that if the parking company’s conduct in bringing the claim was more than just misguided – for example, vexatious, wholly without merit, or abusive of the process – additional costs can be asked for beyond the £95 (such as all missed work time, or mileage at a higher rate, etc.) 

6.5 “Unreasonable behaviour” during the course of litigation by the Claimant: 

   a) Not bothering to carry out a 28 pence 'soft trace' that the BPA CoP requires – this would have ensured the claim was sent to the correct address. 

   b) Added a fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £70 'damages/fee' and inflated interest to the original sum of £100 - both appear to be for the profit of CEL and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN. 

   c) Refusing the Defendant’s offer to consent to the application dated 03/06/24 - this would have saved both parties costs as well as not wasted the court’s time. 

 

7.1 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: xxxx 

SIGNED: xxxx 

DEFENDANT  

 

REFERENCES 

- VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) (YouTube video of the live hearing and separate PDF copy transcript of the preliminary decision by the CoA to allow Mr Carr to appeal is attached)  

- 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) 

In my separate assessment of costs, can I claim for anything other than what I put on the draft order months ago? I only mentioned the reimbursement of the £303 fee on my draft order.

Coupon-mad

That's very good.

I'd just change this:

"the duration of “parking” was 102 minutes, 12 minutes over the maximum of 90 minutes".  

to this

the duration of total stay was 102 minutes on site in a large retail car park that offered 90 minutes free parking.

...and yes, you can add more costs to your costs assessment: you may not get it all but you can ask for your time off work/loss of leave for attending the hearing (attach proof of hourly rate), your travel costs to/from court, parking for the hearing, and printing, if you have a receipt and printed paperwork.

tuna460

So I had my first hearing, CCJ set aside! which was obviously the priority, but claim was not struck and costs were reserved.

Judge wasn't great to be honest. Initially started off okay when he said he "sympathised with me" having not received any correspondance compared to other cases where the defendant simply ignores it.

I then brought up the subject of striking out the claim to which he said he couldn't do that since he didn't know whether the claim had any merit as he had not seen the claim form. I immediately brought up the arguments of failure to specify breach in POC CPR 16.4(1)(e) and claim expired CPR 7.5, to both of which he simply said "I don't agree", and nothing else.
I had argued them fairly well in my opinion, although regrettably did not explicitly mention the near identical cases of Chan, Akande and others (though he must have read them in my skeleton and WS) as the conversation took me off my prepared plan. I did then think about pushing further with these but his curt response seemed pretty final and disuaded me.

I brought up costs which he initially said something like he could not order because I hadn't used representation and hadn't incurred any legal fees. Fairly stunned I obviously pointed to the £303 application fee I had been forced to pay to overcome CEL's mistake. He then managed to demonstrate his complete lack of comprehension by saying that CEL had sent everything to the address they had been given, implying they'd done what they could.
I responded with the "reasonable steps" required by CPR 6.9(3) and the CoP "soft trace" which they had failed to do, but to my surprise the Judge was not interested with any of the legalities and seemed to take a more holistic view of everything.
I argued for unreasonable behaviour and he said I had "already pushed as far as I could" by getting the CCJ set aside, I was half inclined to say that this was the bare minimum outcome.

On reflection I don't think the Judge ever understood that the Claimant is at fault, thinking that this was just an unfortunate event where I moved house and their letters didn't reach me, no party is at fault so he wants to reset to them issuing the claim again.

Costs including the fee were reserved for the final hearing which makes no sense to me, I pointed out that he had already agreed with me that the CCJ was unjustly entered against me so he surely must see that the burden of the application fee to set aside that erroneous CCJ should not fall on me. He again was more interested in the merit of the original claim.
I am concerned now that if I file a defence and CEL discontinue, I would not recover the fee?

With the claim not struck I made sure to ask for detailed partcualrs and any evidence the claimant has so that I can make a proper defence, though the order seems a little different.

The order is below, it has been over 2 weeks and CEL has still not sent the original claim so my 28 days to file a defence have not started yet.