CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

subzero1988

Yes, just to be abundantly clear - PO box has never been used in any capacity as a viable address where the D could be contacted with. No correspondence has been either sent or received from the PO box.

Thanks for your input, but the judge told me now this case has nothing to do with fighting the PO box. It's now fighting the original "parking charge".

So does this apply in terms of the 2 points you just raised? I 

Johnersh

Well, the judgment is set aside. The court may well have rectified service whilst doing so. However the point remains relevant to the reserved costs and whether a judgment should have been secured at all, such that D obviously had to have it removed, the terms C proposed being incapable of agreement and in fact wrong in law.

The defence can contain more than one argument so long as they are clear. Keep it short and punchy.

Coupon-mad

It's as I already posted: it's in support of your argument for full costs on the indemnity basis.

I gave you everything you need for that point.

But MAINLY you still need to respond to the PCN claim itself. What's your defence?

subzero1988

Defence as below - 

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 £175), and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. The Claimant demonstrated improper service of the claim by sending it to a commercial PO Box address which has never been the Defendant’s residence, nor linked to any DVLA record. The Defendant has lived at their current residential address continuously since 2019. The PO Box was closed and inactive for months prior to the issue of the claim and had never been used for personal or legal correspondence.

It is well-established under CPR 6.9, and confirmed in the White Book (2023 edition, commentary on CPR Part 6.9, paragraphs 6.9.3–6.9.4), that service must be to a usual or last known residence — and that a PO Box does not constitute a valid address for service. In Smith v Marston (County Court, 2023, unreported), the court held that service to a PO Box, where the defendant had never resided, was not compliant and justified setting aside default judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment should never have been entered, and the claim was improperly 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.

Points 6–13: Template content (Beavis, no loss, inflated fees, DLUHC code, etc.)
Points 14: Signage, standing, POFA, unfair terms

Point 15. The Defendant draws attention to the recent County Court decision in Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclaycard [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025). In this case, His Honour Judge Robinson BEM presided over an appeal at the County Court at Middlesbrough concerning a challenge to a costs order made under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis of alleged unreasonable behaviour. The appeal was dismissed, and the District Judge’s decision to award costs was upheld. HHJ Robinson confirmed that CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows the Court to make a costs order where a party has behaved unreasonably.

In his obiter observations, HHJ Robinson proposed a useful four-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct in small claims litigation. The four questions are:

• Proof: Is the conduct in question proven?

• Seriousness: Is the conduct serious or significant enough to justify consequences?

• Explanation: Has the party provided a satisfactory explanation?

• Reasonableness: Would a reasonable party in the same position have acted in that way?

The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s actions — including improper service to a PO Box address never used as a residence, the pursuit of a vague and inflated claim, and failure to provide evidence of landowner authority or contract formation — satisfy all four elements and amount to unreasonable conduct. The Defendant reserves the right to submit a costs schedule and respectfully seeks consideration of costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), including on the indemnity basis, should the Claimant discontinue or persist unreasonably.

Points 16: Conclusion
Points 17: Costs summary
Points 18: Statement of Truth

Coupon-mad

In the POC - £175 - your typo? Surely £170?

subzero1988

PCO is correct, copied and pasted straight from the email I received from CNBC - Was also confirmed by the Judge on Monday

Coupon-mad

Doesn't make any sense! Can't be £175 so I think the CNBC made a typo in their email.

Assume it was really £170.

Your defence is good.

subzero1988

Strange, I'll amend to £170.

And thank you, I'm going to submit this.

I should copy in DBC legal as well as the court that is handling this ?

Coupon-mad

Yes, cc in DCB Legal.

subzero1988

Should I bother replying to this? Or just ignore?