CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

subzero1988

Ok I understand now. I'll delete the other posts.

Attached the draft order 

Coupon-mad

Right. You've completely misunderstood.

That's their 'Draft Order.' So what?

With your application, you filed a Draft Order!

It's a battle of the Draft Orders!

Why on earth did you think their one dictates what happens?

You will be at the hearing and they won't be.

Your job is to stop the Judge siding with their Draft Order, because OBVIOUSLY (assuming you paid £303 and are taking a day off work for this hearing)... YOU DON'T WANT 'NO ORDER AS TO COSTS'!

They're trying to wriggle out of paying your costs.  Come on! You aren't agreeing to their Draft Order. Tell the Judge why not.

Point to VCS v Carr (the official video from the Court of Appeal).

Your Draft Order is the correct way forward when a PPC used an old DVLA address. YOU MUST BE AWARDED COSTS.

subzero1988

Didn't go great in court.

Judge hadn't read anything submitted to the court prior to the heating by either claimant or myself.

He read their draft order and wouldn't let me say my case, said there isn't time to go though it.

Hes said I have 14 days from today to submit my defence, set aside the CCJ, and told me that the next judge who reviews my case will decide if I'm awarded costs or not. And also if my case is valid, I'm now defending the original parking notice.

Coupon-mad

subzero1988 said:

Didn't go great in court.

Judge hadn't read anything submitted to the court prior to the heating by either claimant or myself.

He read their draft order and wouldn't let me say my case, said there isn't time to go though it.

Hes said I have 14 days from today to submit my defence, set aside the CCJ, and told me that the next judge who reviews my case will decide if I'm awarded costs or not. And also if my case is valid, I'm now defending the original parking notice.

Lazy unfair Judge but sounds alright:

- CCJ set aside if you defend within 14 days (CCJ WILL BE WIPED!)

- your costs are reserved!

What's not to like? Do your defence as per the Template Defence thread. Game on!

subzero1988

Yeah you are right, it's still a win. I just felt a bit hard done by as the only thing that got read out was the claimants draft order.

However, like you said, time to get a good defence together and submit!

subzero1988

IN THE COUNTY COURT  

Claim Number: XXXX  

Between: UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)  

And: XXXX (Defendant)  

---

CLAIMANT’S PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:  

THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXX AT XXXX.  

THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON 06/01/2024  

THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON: REGISTERED USERS ONLY  

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4.  

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:  

£175 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES.  

INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £0.02 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT.  

COSTS AND COURT FEES.  

---

DEFENCE  

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

---

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and possibly the driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 06/01/2024" (the date of the alleged visit). While the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of any clearly stated or prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no private PCN can lawfully be £170), and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. The Claimant further demonstrated a lack of procedural diligence by serving the court claim to a commercial PO Box address that was not, and never has been, the Defendant’s residential address. This led to a default CCJ being entered without the Defendant’s knowledge, later discovered via a credit alert. The PO Box had been inactive for months, and had the Claimant carried out proper checks (e.g. via DVLA), they would have found the correct residential address where the Defendant has lived and been registered since 2019. This casts serious doubt on whether any earlier notices or PCNs were reliably served.

5. As a result of the above, the Defendant was forced to make an application to set aside the default judgment, which was successful. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court consider reimbursement of the £303 set aside application fee, incurred due to the Claimant’s failure to correctly serve the original proceedings.

subzero1988

I'm not sure why the formatting has come out like that, but from 5 onwards would be the standard template from the sticky page 

Johnersh

Not that it matters now, but a PO Box is not a service address. judgment should never have been entered. The white book deals with this (see also Smith v Marston). It follows that D ought to get the costs of the set aside.

Indeed, the draft order proposed arguably misleads a litigant in person and the court as to the law and status of the service in this case.

subzero1988

I know - I asked if i could speak and explain my statement to him and he denied me my case, and continued to read the draft order set out by the claimants solicitors 

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

Not that it matters now, but a PO Box is not a service address. judgment should never have been entered. The white book deals with this (see also Smith v Marston). It follows that D ought to get the costs of the set aside.

Indeed, the draft order proposed arguably misleads a litigant in person and the court as to the law and status of the service in this case.

Could they add that to their defence in order to argue to claim all their costs on the indemnity basis. Could cite In Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025)?

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC12.html

HHJ Robinson BEM had an appeal brought before him in the County Court at Middlesbrough to deal with Unreasonable behaviour per CPR 27.14(2)(g). HHJ Robinson dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge’s decision, confirming that CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows a costs order where a party has behaved unreasonably. The Appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded. The Court also gave obiter observations suggesting a potential 4-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g):

- Proof – Is the alleged conduct proven?
- Seriousness – Is the conduct serious/significant enough to require explanation?
- Explanation – Is there a good reason for the conduct?
- Reasonableness – Do any other reasonable explanations emerge when considering the whole case?