CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

subzero1988

Getting this all sent off tomorrow! Will keep updated

subzero1988

All submitted and sent off to the applications.CNBC email address.

Coupon-mad

Phone up to pay the fee and get it moving. 

subzero1988

OK thanks, ill do that today

subzero1988

phoned up and paid!

subzero1988

Finally have an update, will see what I get next from willesden court 

Coupon-mad

They've sat on it for months, almost treating it as a claim (they use that word).  Hopefully your local court will see what's what and expedite it properly.

An application is meant to be urgent. 

subzero1988

That was my own doing - I messed up something on the form and didn't actually say I wanted the judgement set aside, so they emailed me and asked me to update it. Resent and now I've got this through.

Hopefully you're right in that sense then, that my local court can see what I am trying to achieve with my application 

subzero1988

Update - court hearing date set 

Coupon-mad

subzero1988 said:

Case number   

xxxxxxxxxxx   

WITNESS STATEMENT   

I, XXX, of XXX , will say as follows:   

  

1. I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 27/06/2024, in default due to defective service of the Claim Form

2. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I had received a notification from a credit score phone application 02/07/2024. This is when I found out the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me.   

3. The Claimant served the claim to using an old associated PO box address, at which I had never resided, and to which is not a residential address. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my current address. 

4. The Claimant has served the claim form to an address that has never been associated with the defendants DVLA address information.

5. The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to check for the correct address, in accordance with CPR 6.9. 

6. I have not received any claim form or detailed particulars of the claim regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 2 above.   

7. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed despite the wealth of case law below that supports the claim being dismissed at the set aside hearing, I should (at the very least) have the opportunity to defend it properly.  My application relies upon the 'mandatory set aside' rule in CPR 13.2 (in the alternative, 13.3).   

8. I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.   

THE USE OF A POST OFFICE BOX DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES 

9. In Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC) HHJ Paul Matthews made some observations about the correct address for service when applications are issued. 

10. Joseph Edwards, councel for the Ministry of Justice provided commentary on CPR rule 6.23, stating “It should be noted that where a solicitor’s or European lawyer’s address is not given under (2)(a) or (b) the address must be an address within the UK or EEA state at which the party resides or carries on business. The precise wording of this rule is important because on occasions defendants attempt to give a PO box address as an address for service. However, a person cannot ‘reside’ at or ‘carry on business’ at a PO box although such a business might be carried on by using such a PO box address. In the circumstances a PO box would not be a valid address for service under that rule.” 

11. Mr Edwards said that the consequence was that the court might strike out the proceedings. There is of course a power in CPR rule 3.4 to strike out a statement of case where there has been a failure to comply with a rule: see rule 3.4(2)(c). 

 

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM   

12. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 27/06/2024. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Control and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.   

13. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."  As I have not had any correspondence in relation to this matter, other than a phone call that I made to Northampton County Court Business Centre on 03/07/2024, I am now aware that the PCN was issued on 06/01/2024. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Claimant, did not issue the claim to my address that I am registered at with the DVLA, as I have been registered with the DVLA at the current address I have resided at since 29/01/2019. They did not perform the requisite "reasonable diligence" required to find my correct address to serve the claim form in. Had reasonable diligence been taken, my personal details are found in multiple public sources, such as the electoral register, DVLA, HMRC. The claimant did not have any contact with the defendant, and thus should have considered they had obtained incorrect details.  

14. The claim form was not served at my current address; thus, I was not aware of the Default judgment until I received notice of an alert on my credit score phone application on 3rd July 2024. This is a breach of CPR 13.2 (a) as the claim form was never served to my current address. Due to this, the judgment was wrongly entered as I was unable to submit an acknowledgement of service in the absence of notification of the case (CPR 13.3).  

15. The address on the claim is ADDRESS A. I have never resided at this address, as it is a registered PO box, which is run by UKPostbox Ltd. The PO box has not been used since mid-2023, it was solely being used to receive bank statements whilst I was working in different locations around the UK during the year of 2023. The PO box account was registered to a work email address, to which I have no access too since I terminated my contract with the company in October 2023, the PO box was then not required and thus inaccessible. I In support of this, I can provide documentation showing my current address on my V5C form, council tax and utility bills. (SEE EXHIBIT XX-01)  

16. The fact that the address the Claimant issued the claim form to was clearly not a residential address, as the address on the claim form start with “UNIT 3”, this should have been evident enough without having to any research into the address itself that was not a residential address. The address the claim was issued to was registered under a company name called “UKPOSTBOX”, this in itself should have been a clear indicator that it was not a residential address.   

17. I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which was clearly not a residential address. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ensure the claim was issued to a residential address, let alone my current residence, despite having months to establish a valid residential address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to a disused PO box address and an irregular judgment.   

18. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.   

BPA CODE OF PRACTICE WAS NOT FOLLOWED   

19. This clearly breaches both Civil Procedural Rule 6.9 which requires them to take reasonable steps to find you before serving the Letter of Claim AND is a flagrant breach of the BPA Code of Practice para 24.1.c: 

20. "24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct." 

21. The above means that UKPC should have taken reasonable steps to ensure that any correspondence was being sent to a residential address. It would have been inexpensive for the Claimaint to check the address that the claim form was due to be sent to, and to have been able to acknowledge that it could not have been a residential address, and that they were issuing Claim forms to a PO box. 

 

DVLA ADDRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN RELIABLE   

22. The PO address where the claim was served to, (XXXX), has never been registered with the DVLA under my name. My DVLA records will only ever show two addresses where I have had vehicles registered to. My previous address, (XXXX), and my current address (XXXX).  

23. DVLA data is provided for a single (very limited) reason, so a parking operator can invite the registered keeper to name the driver or pay the invoice or inform the registered keeper they will be liable if not and notify of appeal rights.   

24. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £303 from the claimant should this request be successful.   

25. There is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. Of note:   

26. In Collier v Williams [2006] 1 WLR 1945 (CA) LJ Dyson said   
   
27. "What state of mind in the server is connoted by the words "last known"? … As we have said, there is an important distinction between belief and knowledge. It is a distinction particularly well understood in the criminal law, but elsewhere too. The draftsman of the rules deliberately chose the word "known". In our view, knowledge in this context refers to the serving party's actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence. We arrive at this conclusion on the basis of what we understand the words to mean. We do not believe that there are any policy reasons which require us to give the words a strained or unusual meaning. The risk of satellite litigation is inherent in whatever interpretation is adopted. It is true that a defendant who has not in fact received the claim form should have no difficulty in setting aside a default judgment. But it is not desirable that defendants should be put to the trouble and expense of making applications to set aside default judgment."   
   
30. The same sentiment was echoed by:   
   
31. HHJ Hacon in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)   
   
32. HHJ Behrens in Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)   
   
33. In Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012) it would appear that obtaining the information from a source that an individual is required by law to keep updated is adequate knowledge. However, i would submit that it is incumbent to have recent knowledge and not outdated knowledge as HHJ Hacon put it in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)    

 34. As it was put in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (09 February 2016) by LJ McCombe   

35. “If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgment. He is simply not in default at all."   

 

CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT   

36. The claim should be struck out regardless of the above other abusive conduct, because the POC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 
 
37. I have only just, in July 2024, seen the generic POC, which are reproduced below: 
 

38. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE (XXXX) AT (XXXX). 2. THE PCN WERE ISSUED ON 06/01/2024 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:REGISTERED USERSONLY 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. 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 £.02 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES 
 
 39. In view of those woeful POC I am confident in relying upon a recent persuasive Appeal judgment as authority to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). Dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. 

 
40. Bulk litigators should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following authority: 

41. In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) heard on 15th August 2023 and which was also about a N244 'parking CCJ' set aside application (wrong refused at the first hearing), HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. 

42. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment and dozens of similar decisions both at hearings and at allocation the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

SET ASIDE APPLICATION WAS MADE PROMPTLY 

43. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on the 3rd July 2024. On the following day (4th July 2024) I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.  

 44. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. 

Statement of truth:   

45. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   

  

Signed:   

It looks like you didn't exhibit CEL v Chan, only referred to it?

In which case do a skeleton argument (search the forum) and attach these transcripts:

CEL v Chan

CPMS v Akande

VCS v Carr


You will find suitable wording to briefly explain the relevance of each of those cases when you search the forum for the transcripts, which you will find easily.