Ccj set aside application as improperly served to old address - DCBL - Euro Car Parks Ltd

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81936659#Comment_81936659

Hi. I've resent it today. Hopefully I'll hear something quickly now. Thank you.

jdub1206

Hi everyone. a quick update...

So I resent the set aside form with all the evidence etc. On 31st March. I've still not heard anything so I decided to phone again today. It turns out that a judge in the town where I live was allocated to the case on 26th March. So waiting now for a hearing date? @Coupon-mad is that what happens next? What are the best ways of preparing for the in-person hearing. Will I definitely need to do an in-person hearing or is it possible that the judge will just set aside the ccj and award the compensation? Thank you.

Coupon-mad

You must attend and ask in person for your costs.

Await the local Court's directions … unless you have holiday booked or important family or work events on weekdays this Spring/Summer, which obviously you'd have thought of and emailed to the local court by now, to ensure the hearing isn't set for a day in the weeks you can't do. But that's just common sense, not needing our advice!

jdub1206

Hi everyone. An update. The court have now written to me with a hearing date, this Friday 1st May 2026.

@Coupon-mad generally, what will I be needing to share/prepare for at the hearing? Is it just confirming that I'd like the ccj set aside and my costs, as per my witness statement, reimbursed? Will I need to go into the full history of the case from the beginning, ie, the original PCN was sent to the wrong address etc? Generally, will they bring up the costs etc or will I need to? Also, will I know within the hearing the decision re the ccj being set aside? If it is set aside, will it be removed immediately from my credit file or will it take time? Also, will it still negatively effect my credit score/ability to get credit? Apologies for all the questions! Thank you for your help as always.

Coupon-mad

You will know that the CCJ has been set aside and the judge has no discretion on that. Mention CPR 13.2 (this is a mandatory set aside, use those words confidently).

Old address, no trace carried out, refer to the landmark parking CCJ set aside case from last year: at the VCS v Carr hearing at the Court of Appeal their lordships said the DVLA address is only a 'starting point' not to be assumed as an address for service if the recipient is silent or time has passed.

This is why the industry Code requires a soft trace and PCN reissued to new address. Not a sneaky claim to an unchecked address!

VCS v Carr also confirmed that a claim improperly served is EXPIRED after 4 months and the court cannot revive it. The whole claim was struck out for that reason in Carr.

Remember to say that.

Call the judge 'Judge' (this is correct now).

The other side almost certainly won't turn up.

It will be you speaking - but go in assuming that you will get a grumpy judge who thinks it's your fault and/or who might say:

"good news! The Claimant has consented so I don't need to hear from you. They have supplied a draft Order so this'll take minutes and you can then defend the case in 14 days…"

Your reply: "No judge. I am relying on CPR 13.2 and the binding Court of Appeal parking CCJ case of VCS v Carr. Like that authority, I am here to see:

• the CCJ set aside
• the claim struck out as expired unserved (same as VCS v Carr).
• my costs in full, per the usual rule for winning parties and the fact that this case was never allocated to the small claims track. Therefore, my costs apply, exactly the same as VCS v Carr.

Tell the judge too, that DCB Legal ALWAYS intend to discontinue Euro Car Parks claims. They are known as 'discontinue legal' in the parking industry!

Therefore there is nothing to be gained by prolonging the case, or not granting costs today. They never turn up to set aside hearings and they WILL discontinue if the case survives today, which is a complete waste of court time and wholly unreasonable.

jdub1206

@Coupon-mad Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful.

I will update at the weekend and let you know how it goes.

Thanks again.

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81979018#Comment_81979018

@Coupon-mad

If I say all of the above, is it possible that he still sticks to me having to defend the case in 14 days? If he doesn't, what will/may happen next? Are there any other potential scenarios that I need to be prepared for? Thank you. Apologies for the questions. I've never been to court and I'm extremely anxious about it. Thank you for your help.

Coupon-mad

is it possible that he still sticks to me having to defend the case in 14 days?

Yes it is possible. Judges are human and whilst the CCJ set aside is mandatory under CPR 13.2 (make sure you use that phrase!) we sometimes see a few judges not striking out the claim, and ordering a defence.

Then DCB Legal will discontinue. Always do. That is why you MUST get your costs at the first hearing - first time of asking - because you know if the case survives, they'll run away. And that isn't justice.

A hearing feels like a job interview. Formal but you can read the room and read the judge from their nods, eye contact and expressions.

Read this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6634255/moorside-legal-ccj-n244-help

Look how that person used the time to convince the judge to grant all three things: set aside, costs and strike out of claim despite the judge firstly saying there wasn't time.

jdub1206

@Coupon-mad

Thank you. I've just had this email from DCB legal. This is their statement to the court:

We act for the Claimant and write in respect of the above matter.

We have received the Defendant’s Application dated note the content.

The Claim Form was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to

CPR 6.9. Pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the
Defendant’s current address by conducting a trace and this trace result provided the
Claimant with ‘knowledge’ of the Defendant’s address. Furthermore, my firm have not been
made aware by the Court that the Claim Form has been returned as undelivered or “gone
away”.

Further to the above, I respectfully invite the Court to consider the case of Collier v Williams

[2006] EWCA Civ 20, whereby it was held that there must be reasonable belief of the
Defendant’s ‘last known residence’ and the Defendant must have resided at that address at
some time in the past for the service of the Claim Form to be valid. In this regard the
Defendant has confirmed within his application that the address to which the Claim Form
was served was a former address. The onus is on the Defendant to ensure that the DVLA is
kept up to date with their address at all times. This is a legal requirement as per the Road
Traffic Act 1988.

The Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s last known address.

The Defendant’s details were retrieved from the DVLA and a further trace was taken prior to
the issuance of the Letter of Claim. It is therefore denied that the Claimant had breached any
of the Civil Procedure Rules.

It is denied that the Claimant is liable for the cost of the Defendant’s application. The
Defendant did not pass the data protection questions when corresponding with the Claimant,

no response was ever received to the follow-up questions asked to the Defendant. It is
submitted that if the Defendant had responded to the Claimant’s data protection questions,
an Application would not have been needed and an amicable conclusion could have been
reached. The Defendant forced Court action and denied the parties a chance to reach a
resolution without wasting the Court’s time and resources.

Pursuant to CPR 13.3(2) the Court must consider whether the application has been made
promptly. However, I respectfully point out that there has been a substantial delay between
the date Judgment was entered and the date of the Defendant’s application, namely nearing
8 months. I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to the case of Regency Rolls v Carnall

[2000] EWCA 379 in which a period exceeding 30 days was considered too long, and the
case of Hart Investments v Fidler [2006] EWCA 2857 in which more than 50 days was
considered too long by the Court. Therefore, I do not believe the Defendant’s application has
been made promptly and the Claimant should not be liable for the costs of the same.

Despite the above, and in the interest of the Court’s overriding objective, the Claimant
proposes the enclosed Draft Order to be considered on the basis that although the Claim
was correctly served, they did not receive the Claim Form and therefore did not have the
opportunity to defend the claim.

Should the Defendant also seek to recover the costs of making the Application to set
Judgment aside, it is submitted that, pursuant to CPR 27.14, the Defendant is not entitled to
costs incurred where the matter has been allocated to the Small Claims Track. Given the
value of the debt, this matter would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track had the
Defendant responded to the Claim Form.

Your thoughts on their statement would be appreciated. How do I defend against this. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

I already predicted that Draft Order, and advised you what to say to head it off if the judge is taken in by it as an easy fix.

Did you read the linked example? None of this should be a problem for you at the hearing if well prepped & expecting the worst opening words from the judge. Be ready!

This is exactly as I already told you: they are trying to wriggle out of the costs.

They say this (below) but - suspiciously - no copy of that imaginary trace is in evidence. Had they actually done a 'soft trace' prior to the LBC, your new address was 'there to be found' as all your bank cards, phone contracts, utilities, council tax and driving licence were showing the newer address since MONTH/YEAR:

"The Defendant’s details were retrieved from the DVLA and a further trace was taken prior to the issuance of the Letter of Claim"

They also talk about you having to act promptly under CPR 13.3 (discretionary set aside which requires promptness) but be VERY clear that your application primarily relies on CPR 13.2 (mandatory set aside).

In any event, I suspect you did 'act promptly' as soon as you discovered the CCJ and it's ludicrous to say you knew about the CCJ before you actually knew!

I've also already given you the killer line about the DVLA address being "only a starting point" from the hearing in VCS v Carr.

Watch that hearing on Youtube now.

Hear what the Court of Appeal (second highest court in the land) says about relying on the DVLA address! Tell your judge.