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

Gr1pr

SE = Sarah Ensall, not qualified to sign it or conduct litigation

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81874056#Comment_81874056

Ah, ok, thank you. Does she sign all of the claim forms for DCB Legal? Thank you.

Coupon-mad

Read a few Mazur v Speechlys DCB Legal cases! Search the forum. You'll see.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81874080#Comment_81874080

Used to, but not anymore!

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81873939#Comment_81873939

Hi. I'm adding the following to my WS. If you're able to take a look and let me know if I'm on the right track that would be great. Thank you.

29a. With regards to the costs incurred by myself, I would like to state that my case is about setting aside a default judgment (exactly like VCS v Carr) and was not allocated to the Small Claims track at the point when the £313 fee was incurred.

VCS v Carr is the Court of Appeal binding authority here. Mr Carr won and his costs were awarded in full, including the £313 fee.

The cases are on all fours:

A parking firm, VCS had failed to comply with the CPRs and Industry Code of Practice by issuing a claim to an old address without doing the 'soft address trace' check first (which doesn't require a 'reason to believe' that a person has moved).

The clause is mandatory in the 2024 Joint Code in all cases prior to litigation, and it's based on the Government's statutory Code which was 'temporarily' withdrawn in 2022 and is about to be reintroduced this year by the new MHCLG (that clause isn't looking likely to be touched; it wasn't raised in the public consultation). So the failure to do a soft trace - an automated 'sweep' of cases which costs less than 30 pence, in bulk - is:

A clear breach of the rules in the parking sector, is wholly unreasonable,

does not “permit of a reasonable explanation” and ignoring this clause is plainly likely to cause CCJs, and

failure to check an address goes against the Civil Procedure Rules, which is why the Government requires it.

The Court of Appeal Judges in VCS v Carr remarked that a DVLA address "is only a starting point" and they also said that 'not hearing' from the recipient IS in itself likely to be 'reason to believe' that letters may not have been received.

The Defendant doesn't need a 'cause of action' to be granted their costs arising in a case that was outside of the small claims track.

It is notable that DCB Legal seems to have failed to obtain a soft trace, yet found the Defendant easily when they rushed to do a trace after the CCJ! An out of the blue 'pay up, you've got a CCJ' letter from DCBL (same group as DCB Legal) traced the defendant and miraculously came to the right address!

I would also respectfully draw the court's attention to the High Court case law of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).

This is a significant case concerning the right to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The unserved claim made no mention of a term breached so the Particulars failed Part 16, AND the missing claim form was signed by Sarah Ensall, who is not an authorised person.

I respectfully submit that if I, the defendant, am successful in this set aside Application, which given the above evidence I hope to be, then this will make the Claimants liable for my costs (r.38.6(1)) which says:

“Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.”

This is the usual rule and it automatically applies because the claim was not allocated to track, so small claims rules are irrelevant.

To depart from that 'usual rule', generally, the claimant must show some form of unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant, which they have not.

In Brookes v HSBC Bank Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 354; [2012], the Court of Appeal provided guidance in the form of 6 key principles which should be considered for the disapplication of CPR 38.6:

The starting presumption is that the defendant should recover its costs and the burden is on the claimant to show a good reason for departing from that presumption;

The fact that the claimant would or might have succeeded at trial is not itself a sufficient reason for departing from the presumption;

The fact that the claimant’s decision to discontinue may have been motivated by practical, pragmatic or financial reasons, and not a lack of confidence in the merits of the claim, is not enough to displace the presumption;

Whilst the first four principles set down by Brookes dictate ‘what will not be considered’, the final two principles set the scene for ‘what will be considered’ to disapply the usual rule:

The claimant will usually need to show a change of circumstances to which it has not contributed to or caused;

And such change in circumstance is only likely to suffice where it has been brought about by unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant. 

I am the innocent party. I have done nothing wrong and the Claimant has not made a case that I have. Therefore, the usual rule in CPR 38.6 has not been disapplied so I should not have to prove unreasonable conduct by the Claimants.

jdub1206

@Coupon-mad

Also, a couple more questions if that's ok:

1. Where my WS states "

Initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing are provided separately for the court’s reference: Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWCA Civ 713 (points. 39).

Do I need to provide the initial findings in this case?

2. On this point:

"19.  In “Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan” (2018), the court held that sending court documents to a previous address when a more recent one is known is not proper service [see Exhibit G]. The court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5. The court held that the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case. Similarly, in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach, rendering the claim defective and liable to be struck out."

What do I need to submit here for Exhibit G? Also, I’m confused as to what this means. Could you clarify for me, please? Thank you.

3. Finally, on this point:

“AND the missing claim form was signed by Sarah Ensall, who is not an authorised person.”

How do I know/find out if SE definitely signed my claim form? Thank you.

Apologies for all the questions. Thank you again for all the help.

Coupon-mad

1. You shouldn't be talking about the 'initial' findings. That's copied from an old thread. The final judgment has existed since last year, so you should be citing VCS v Carr & linking to the Court of Appeal hearing on Youtube (having watched it yourself, first!) as well as exhibiting the CoA judgment.
   
   
2. This is a complete muddle & badly wrong, so I don't know where this came from?

"In “Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan” (2018), the court held that sending court documents to a previous address when a more recent one is known is not proper service [see Exhibit G]. "

No. CEL v Chan was in 2023 and said nothing of the sort.

3. She signed every DCB Legal claim until October 2025 when Mazur became known.

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876476#Comment_81876476

Hi. Thank you for the feedback. I'm really confused! And worried now that I've messed up my entire WS.

So, question 1. Is quoting point 13 from my WS:

"13. The claimant demonstrated that they could have easily found the defendant’s current address to properly serve the claim and thus could have easily complied with CPR 6.9, having very quickly sent notice of Debt recovery to the correct address, once a default CCJ had been obtained in the defendant’s absence. Additionally, this appears to be a common method of operation used by the clamant to obtain default judgments. This failure to take proper steps is not an isolated case. Many individuals across the country have been similarly affected by the parking industry's failure to confirm accurate addresses, resulting in undue stress and legal burdens. This failure mirrors the principles established in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where the court held that claimants must take reasonable steps to ensure service is effective. The court emphasised that serving a claim at an outdated address, without reasonable diligence, renders the judgment void. Initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing are provided separately for the court’s reference: Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD Neutral Citation Number[2025] EWCA Civ 713 (points. 39)."

So should I edit the ending of this removing where it says initial findings and replacing this with the YouTube link? Thank you.

Question 2 relates to point 19. In my WS. Most of my ws has been copied from another ccj witness statement that was very similar to my case from another thread and then edited to fit my case. As it is factually incorrect, should I remove point 19 entirely? Again, this is what I put in point 19:

" 19. In “Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan” (2018), the court held that sending court documents to a previous address when a more recent one is known is not proper service [see Exhibit G]. The court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5. The court held that the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case. Similarly, in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach, rendering the claim defective and liable to be struck out."

I'm concerned now That there are potentially other errors in my WS As I simply don't have the knowledge required. Any reassurance would be appreciated before I send the form in. Thank you. I really appreciate the assistance.

Coupon-mad

1. Just remove the word 'initial' for VCS v Carr, and link the Court of Appeal's official Youtube recording and the final written judgment.
2. I have no idea which '2018 judgment' that person should have cited but it wasn't CEL v Chan! So remove that paragraph.
3. Show us the new draft WS, in case we can spot anything else.

jdub1206

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876954#Comment_81876954

Thank you. I'll adjust and post shortly. Thanks again.