Default CCJ having moved address

Coupon-mad

Remove 3.  It's just not appropriate: if a claim is struck out then there are no costs related to it, only the application fee and your hearing attendance costs which you are asking for.

Paragraph 2 would be better saying 'struck out' due to Chan etc...as seen in the current threads by:

@Lia_F
(a case where the claim was filed more than 4 months ago so they have the added argument and case law that the claim has expired)

@confusedparking
(a case where the claim was filed less than 4 months ago).

Truss_me

Thanks, I've made the changes as suggested. 

To serve the papers, do I need to Email my pack to the CNBC (applications.cnbc@justice.gov.uk)? I think I read somewhere I then need to ring them up and pay but can't now find any thread explaining the process! Is there anything I then need to do or request from them? 

Do I then need serve CEL a copy of the pack to their registered office? 

Coupon-mad

Yes you are correct but you don't need to email anything to CEL because the CNBC will (the application tells you this).

Truss_me

Despite CNBC taking my money and loosing all knowledge of the case I eventually got my hearing date which is  in a few weeks time. I'm now just refreshing myself on what I need to do prior to the hearing.
Just reading some similar threads plus newbies #2, so understand this is just about the set-aside, so will be focusing on why service was invalid. 
I have already submitted my witness statement, is there anything else I need to do?
Do I need to take anything regarding costs so they can be reserved for the final hearing? 
Even the phrases to a couple of relevant cases to follow would be very appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Truss_me said:

OK if it's the V5C that matters here, the date on those is a month after I moved.
11 months before the CCJ and 13 before the date of this letter!

Did you attach the above as exhibits?

Did you attach both transcripts of CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande and state that the entire claim should be struck out? After all, CEL v Chan is about the EXACT SAME WOEFUL POC! 

Did you use VCS v Carr? There is a final decision which the Court of Appeal videoed on 4th March and you need to exhibit that too and search the forum for wording about it.

If you are missing any if the above I would do a Skeleton Argument attaching those transcripts now, plus a separate sheet headed COSTS ASSESSMENT - DEFENDANT - CLAIM NO xxxx which also includes ordinary costs for attending the hearing: travel, parking, loss of salary or loss of leave. And a copy of your receipt for the £303 fee.

Truss_me

Perfect, many thanks Coupon-mad.
I'd not included much on previous case law in my witness statement. So I've done some reading into others skeleton arguments and found the transcripts.(Thanks @Le_Kirk). 
Heavily plagiarised, but would appreciate thoughts on the following:

Truss_me

1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated XXXX, pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3, and to strike out the claim.

1.2 The Defendant contends that:

- The claim was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, as it was sent to an address where the Defendant no longer resided, in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

- The claim is without merit, as the Defendant has evidence demonstrating that he was operating as an emergency worker responding to events as a result of a declared nationwide storm.   

 

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION

2.1 Improper Service (CPR 13.2)

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

2.1.2 The claim was sent to XXXX, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at XXXX, as evidenced by his sale invoice (xxxx).

2.1.3 The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. A simple and inexpensive “soft trace” (costing 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant’s current address.

2.1.4 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. A transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing is attached separately.

2.2 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

2.2.1 Even if service is deemed valid, the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Defendant has evidence that he was attending emergency works on the day in question and appealed as such at the time.

2.2.2 The claim is therefore without merit, and the Defendant should be given the opportunity to defend it properly.

 

3. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

3.1 VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025)

 

3.1.1 The Court of Appeal in VCS Ltd v Carr 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.

3.1.2 The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective in CPR 13.3, which requires the court to consider the justice of the case. The Defendant in this case was unable to defend the claim due to improper service, and the judgment should be set aside to avoid injustice.

3.1.3 A transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing is provided separately for the court’s reference.

3.2 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)

3.2.1 In CEL v Chan, 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.

3.2.2 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.

3.3 CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024)

3.3.1 In CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a parking claim due to the Claimant’s failure to specify the nature of the breach in the particulars of claim. The court held that the Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case.

3.3.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach, and the claim should be struck out.

 

4. RELIEF SOUGHT

4.1 The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XXXX, as it was not correctly served at the Defendant’s current address.

b. Strike out the claim for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5.

c. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £303 for the fee of making

this application

 

5. COSTS ASSESSMENT

5.1 In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks: 

   (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and 

   (b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

5.2 While not specific to lost earnings, it’s worth noting a key Court of Appeal case Dammermann v. Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 regarding small claims costs. 

5.3 This case clarified the “unreasonable conduct” exception in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Normally, apart from the fixed costs (fees, travel, up to £95/day loss of earnings, etc.), no further costs are awarded. However, rule 27.14(2)(g) says the court may order a party who has behaved unreasonably to pay further costs. In Dammermann, the Court of Appeal emphasized that “unreasonable” is a high bar: “conduct cannot be described as being unreasonable simply because it leads in the event to an unsuccessful result… The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation. If so, the course adopted may not be unreasonable.” 

5.4 This means that if the parking company’s conduct in bringing the claim was more than just misguided – for example, vexatious, wholly without merit, or abusive of the process – additional costs can be asked for beyond the £95 (such as all missed work time, or mileage at a higher rate, etc.) 

5.5 “Unreasonable behaviour” during the course of litigation by the Claimant: 

   a) Not bothering to carry out a 28 pence 'soft trace' that the BPA CoP requires – this would have ensured the claim was sent to the correct address. 

   b) Added a fake (unincurred and disproportionate) £70 'damages/fee' and inflated interest to the original sum of £100 - both appear to be for the profit of CEL and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged PCN. 

   c) Refusing the Defendant’s offer to consent to the application dated XXXX - this would have saved both parties costs as well as not wasted the court’s time. 

 

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Defendant respectfully submits that the default judgment should be set aside due to improper service, and the claim should be struck out as it is without merit and fails to comply with the CPR.

 

DATED: XXXX

SIGNED: xxxx

DEFENDANT

 

REFERENCES

- VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

- CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

Coupon-mad

Very good - but there isn't a written transcript of the hearing or judgment yet:

"A transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing is attached separately." (Also repeated in 3.1.3).

Not quite. There are TWO things to attach or link re VCS v Carr:

- the initial findings in 2024 by the CoA in allowing the appeal to be heard (2 pages);

- the URL to the official CoA hearing video on 4th March where they were damning about the parking firm using an old address. 

And this is wrong:

"The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective in CPR 13.3,"

Remove 'in CPR 13.3' from that sentence! The Overriding Objective is an overarching doctrine for judges to be mindful about (justice and fair, timely low cost resolution in every case). Nothing to do with any individual CPR!

And your 'COSTS ASSESSMENT' should be on a separate sheet entirely. Both signed & dated. Both saved & attached as PDFs.

Apart from those tweaks, YES it's perfect!

I might well use it as an example for others who need a skelly to summarise the legal argument in support of a CCJ case.

Truss_me

OK right thanks. Yes great if this can help someone else out too!
Costs removed and tweaks made.
Is this better? 

Truss_me

1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated 12 July 2024, pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3, and to strike out the claim.

1.2 The Defendant contends that:

- The claim was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, as it was sent to an address where the Defendant no longer resided, in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

- The claim is without merit, as the Defendant has evidence demonstrating that he was operating as an emergency worker responding to events as a result of a declared nationwide storm.   

 

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION

2.1 Improper Service (CPR 13.2)

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

2.1.2 The claim was sent to XXXX, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at XXXX, as evidenced by his sale invoice (xxxx).

2.1.3 The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. A simple and inexpensive “soft trace” (costing 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant’s current address.

2.1.4 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.

2.2 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

2.2.1 Even if service is deemed valid, the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Defendant has evidence that he was attending emergency works on the day in question and appealed as such at the time.

2.2.2 The claim is therefore without merit, and the Defendant should be given the opportunity to defend it properly.

 

3. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

3.1 VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025)

 

3.1.1 The Court of Appeal in VCS Ltd v Carr 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.

3.1.2 The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective, which requires the court to consider the justice of the case. The Defendant in this case was unable to defend the claim due to improper service, and the judgment should be set aside to avoid injustice.

3.1.3 The the initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing is provided separately for the court’s reference.

3.2 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)

3.2.1 In CEL v Chan, 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.

3.2.2 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.

3.3 CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024)

3.3.1 In CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a parking claim due to the Claimant’s failure to specify the nature of the breach in the particulars of claim. The court held that the Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case.

3.3.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach, and the claim should be struck out.

 

4. RELIEF SOUGHT

4.1 The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated XXXX, as it was not correctly served at the Defendant’s current address.

b. Strike out the claim for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5.

c. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £303 for the fee of making

this application

 

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Defendant respectfully submits that the default judgment should be set aside due to improper service, and the claim should be struck out as it is without merit and fails to comply with the CPR.

 

DATED: XXXX

SIGNED: xxxx

DEFENDANT

 

REFERENCES

- VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached

- VCS Ltv v Car Official CoA hearing video URL

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)

- CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) (separate PDF copy of transcript attached)