CCJ - Issued to an old PO box

subzero1988

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Thanks,

I'll research and find these transcripts.

What do you mean by attach these transcripts? The next step for me is attending the hearing, am I right ?

Coupon-mad

Yes and no:

I said submit a skeleton argument first and search the forum to find out about how people use them. It's a way to introduce authorities that support your application, emailed to court (and cc to the Claimant's solicitor of course) for the Judge to read BEFORE the hearing.

Used in some CCJ set aside cases. Search the forum and read a few.  In your case it's to add the 3 transcripts, none of which are 'reported' cases so your Judge won't be able to find them otherwise.

subzero1988

Coupon-mad said:

Yes and no:

I said submit a skeleton argument first and search the forum to find out about how people use them. It's a way to introduce authorities that support your application, emailed to court (and cc to the Claimant's solicitor of course) for the Judge to read BEFORE the hearing.

Used in some CCJ set aside cases. Search the forum and read a few.  In your case it's to add the 3 transcripts, none of which are 'reported' cases so your Judge won't be able to find them otherwise.

Thank you, really appreciate the help. I'll get right to it.

subzero1988

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT Willsden

Claim No: XXXX

Between:

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED (Claimant)

And

XXXX (Defendant)

---

SKELETON ARGUMENT

For the Defendant’s Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

---

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dated 27/06/24, pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

1.2 The Defendant contends that the judgment was improperly obtained as the claim form was sent to a PO Box address. This address has never been connected to the Defendant in any capacity. The Defendant’s vehicle has always been registered at the correct address on the DVLA record. Furthermore, the Defendant’s council tax records, utility bills, and driving licence were all registered to [Current Address] at the time.

---

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION

2.1 CPR 13.2 (Mandatory Setting Aside)

The court must set aside the judgment if it was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, which requires that service on an individual be made at their "usual or last known residence."

The Defendant asserts that the claim was sent to a PO Box address, which does not qualify as their usual or last known residence. The service was therefore defective, rendering the judgment void.

2.2 CPR 13.3 (Discretionary Setting Aside)

Even if service is considered valid, the Defendant submits that:

 - There is a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and/or

 - There is some other compelling reason for the judgment to be set aside and the case to be heard.

---

3. EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING CASE LAW

3.1 Defective Service to a PO Box Address

 - The claim form was sent to a PO Box address where the Defendant has never resided. This address has no association with the Defendant or their vehicle registration.

 - The Defendant’s car has always been registered to [Current Address], and the Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to verify the correct address, contrary to CPR 6.9(3).

 - The Defendant's DVLA records, council tax records, utility bills, and driving licence provide consistent evidence of the correct address.

The importance of proper service is emphasised in Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1001, Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 656, and Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2013] EWCA Civ 123, where service to outdated or irrelevant addresses was deemed invalid due to lack of reasonable steps to verify the address.

---

3.2 Failure to Verify Address and Breach of Procedure

The Claimant did not undertake reasonable checks, such as a Credit Reference Agency (CRA) trace, which costs as little as 28 pence. Nor did they attempt to confirm the Defendant's address through the DVLA or other publicly available records. Instead, they relied on an invalid PO Box address.

In CPMS Ltd v Akande [2024], HHJ Evans held that failure to serve a claim to a correct and verified address constitutes a significant procedural error. The failure of proper service renders any default judgment voidable under CPR 13.2.

---

3.3 Expiration of Claim Period and Dead Claim

Given that more than four months have passed since the issuance of the claim form, the Defendant submits that the claim is void under CPR 7.6. Courts have repeatedly refused retrospective extensions for serving claims where no reasonable steps were taken to serve within the time limit.

Authorities supporting this include:

 - Boxwood v Gleeson [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC) – emphasising strict compliance with service deadlines.

 - Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 – confirming that failure to serve within four months invalidates the claim.

 - Piepenbrock v Associated News Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) – where a claim was struck out due to lack of valid service and a refusal to grant a retrospective extension.

---

3.4 Inadequate Particulars of Claim (POC)

The Claimant’s POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5, providing insufficient detail regarding the alleged breach. Courts have previously struck out claims with vague particulars, as seen in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2022] and CPMS Ltd v Akande [2024].

---

4. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF SETTING ASIDE

4.1 Improper Service

The claim form was served at a PO Box address unconnected to the Defendant. As the service did not meet the requirements of CPR 6.9, the judgment is void under CPR 13.2.

4.2 Meritorious Defence

 - The Defendant disputes the claim on the following substantive grounds:

 - Defective service of the claim form.

 - Inadequate POC, failing to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach.

 - Unjustified and inflated fees claimed by the Claimant.

These issues give the Defendant a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

4.3 Prompt Action

The Defendant discovered the judgment on 02/07/24 and promptly applied to set it aside, in compliance with CPR 13.3.

4.4 Interests of Justice

Allowing the judgment to stand would cause significant prejudice to the Defendant, who was denied the opportunity to defend the claim. Setting it aside ensures fairness and adherence to the overriding objective under CPR 1.1.

---

5. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

a) Set aside the default judgment dated 27/06/24, under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

b) Strike out the claim due to procedural non-compliance and defective service.

c) Order a stay of all enforcement action pending the application’s resolution.

d) Award costs for the application, including the set-aside fee, to the Defendant.

---

6. REFERENCES

Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1001

Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 656

Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2013] EWCA Civ 123

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2022]

CPMS Ltd v Akande [2024]

Boxwood v Gleeson [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC)

Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784

Piepenbrock v Associated News Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB)

---

Signed: XXXX

Dated: 01/02/2025

Case References - 

- Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1597
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1597.html

- Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 656
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/656.html

- CPMS Ltd v Akande [2024]
PDF attachment

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2023]
PDF attachment

- Boxwood v Gleeson [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2021/947.html

- Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 241 
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1f22c94e0775e7eea8d

- Piepenbrock v Associated News Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) 
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5f02ad3f2c94e00efbd87bc7

Coupon-mad

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.

There's no SoT on a Skeleton Argument.

Are you linking all those cases as hyperlink footnotes?  That will help the Judge.

subzero1988

Noted regarding the SoT. Updated accordingly. 


References - 

- Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1597
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1597.html

- Cranfield v Bridgegrove Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 656
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/656.html

- CPMS Ltd v Akande [2024]
PDF attachment

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2023]
PDF attachment

- Boxwood v Gleeson [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2021/947.html

- Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 241 
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1f22c94e0775e7eea8d

- Piepenbrock v Associated News Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) 
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5f02ad3f2c94e00efbd87bc7

The only case I cannot reference is Carr, I assume because the transcript is not released yet

Coupon-mad

Didn't I say Carr was 'unreported' and that's why you had to attach the version we have?

What about Chan?

Three must be attached as they are unreported.  The rest are fine as bailli links.

subzero1988

My bad, forgot to check-up on your post again from last night.

The only thing I cannot find is VCS v Carr transcript for some reason.

Ive got Chan now and have updated my references 

Coupon-mad

Odd you can't find it.

VCS v Carr is on a thread (again) only this week.

subzero1988

Got it!

So I just need to send this in via email to the court, and then also send this to the claimant ?