CCJ Set Aside Question

Brightonrock123

Hello all, 
We have our set aside hearing now, thank you for your help.  I have received an email from DCB Legal Ltd which states:

We write in relation to the above matter wherein we are instructed to act on behalf of the

Claimant.

We have received the Defendant’s Application dated 07/11/2024 and note the content.

Within the Defendant’s Application they seek for the Judgment to be set aside on the basis

that they did not receive the Claim Form as they were residing at a different address. Upon

review, it is respectfully submitted that 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 pre-

issue trace. This trace result provided the Claimant with knowledge of the Defendant’s

address, which the Claim Form was subsequently served. It is the Claimant’s position that

although the Claim Form was served correctly, it is more than likely than not that the

Defendant did not receive the Claim Form and was therefore unable to defend.

The Defendant also alleges that the Claim should be struck out as the Particulars of Claim

fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction part 16.7.5. For the

avoidance of doubt, it is the Claimant’s position that the Particulars of Claim are in keeping

with the Practice Direction. With respect, if the Defendant believed the Particulars were so

insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to make an Application to the Court. The

Defendant has chosen not to do so.

In view of the above, the Claimant has decided to take an economical approach to the

matter in consideration of CPR 1.1 and to assist the Court in achieving its overriding

objective. As such, we would be grateful if the Court would place the attached Draft Order on

the Court file in readiness of the Hearing listed on 14/07/2025.

In the event that the Defendant seeks to recover the costs of making the Application to set

the Judgment aside, it is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has not acted  unreasonably. A trace was conducted to ensure that the Claim Form was served to the

Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9(3) – the Claimant has therefore

followed the correct process and had no reason to believe that the Defendant would not

have received the Claim Form.

Pursuant to CPR 27.14, the Defendant is not entitled to costs incurred where the matter has

been allocated to the Small Claims Track. If the matter had proceeded, it is reasonable to

assume that the Claim would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track, given the

complexity and balance of the case.

We respectfully excuse our Client’s attendance at the hearing on 14/07/2025. This is meant

with no disrespect to the Court, but is a decision made to save incurring any further costs.

DRAFT ORDER

Before District Judge ___________________________

UPON considering the Defendant’s application dated 07/11/2024;

AND UPON the Claimant accepting that although the Claim was served at the Defendant’s last known address

pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not receive the Claim Form due to residing at a different address and was

therefore unable to respond to the Claim;

AND UPON the above constituting “some other good reason” for Judgment to be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3;

IT IS ORDERED THAT: -

i. The Judgment entered herein on the 28/08/2024 be and is hereby set aside;

ii. It is recorded that a request for cancellation of the judgment has been sent to Registry Trust Limited;

iii. The Defendant is to file a Defence within 14 days;

iv. In default of the above, the Claimant has permission to request for Judgment; and

v. There be no order as to costs.

Brightonrock123

How would you, or even would you reply to this? I intend to ask for costs, the £303 Set Aside fee in particular.

I am drafting my skeleton argument now (which will include the youtube link to VCS v Carr recently).

Thank you again for your help and support.

Brightonrock123

Further to this, here is my skeleton arguement, do you feel it is adequate to email to the court (Lewes, and DCBL?)

SKELETON ARGUMENT - XXX - CLAIM NO XX

1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated 28 August 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.

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 82 At Mary’s Avenue, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to her current address at 13 Beuzeville Avenue, as evidenced by her tenancy agreement.

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 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 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 28 August 2024, 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: 07 July 2025

SIGNED: XXX

DEFENDANT

 

REFERENCES

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

- VCS Ltd v Car Official CoA hearing video URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs&t=1187s

- 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

Good. Three things to add to the skelly:

1. They said this but it's untrue because the claim WAS NEVER allocated to track so costs are not dependant upon 'unreasonable conduct' and costs in the case for the winning party (as happened in VCS v Carr):

"Pursuant to CPR 27.14, the Defendant is not entitled to costs incurred where the matter has been allocated to the Small Claims Track. "

2. Also in VCS v Carr - which is binding 2025 case law from the Court of Appeal - because service was held to be invalid, the claim form had expired; default judgment was rightly set aside and the claim struck out. The expiry risk was a feature of VCSv Carr: Once service is defective, the claim form’s four-month life continues to run; if it expires there is no second bite without a fresh claim or relief under CPR 7.6 (which may be unavailable and which this Claimant has not sought).

3. Further: they say they did a trace but they have failed to say when - if it was several months before litigation then that is clearly unreliable and the CRA trace (which costs leas than a pound in bulk) should have been repeated due to the silence from the Defendant. Also, they don't state which address(es) it revealed and they haven't attached a copy. So this is all hearsay and the Claimant isn't attending to be questioned on it.

------------------------------------------

Read this analysis of VCS v Carr:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81529274/#Comment_81529274

Brightonrock123

Thank you so much that's really helpful, I'll update here Monday afternoon after the hearing.

Coupon-mad

Brightonrock123 said:

Thank you so much that's really helpful, I'll update here Monday afternoon after the hearing.

Don't forget, if the judge says 'no costs, this is small claims' point out it isn't because:

"the case was never allocated to track, and like the binding CCJ set aside case of VCS v Carr (in the Court of Appeal this year) there is no evidence when - or even if - an address trace was done. Clearly not just prior to the claim otherwise they'd have found my current address. Costs are not dependent on unreasonable conduct in a case like this that was never allocated to track".

Brightonrock123

Thank you for replying still, it means a lot.

We had the hearing today, the judge didn't even give me a chance to speak, as soon as I sat down and said good morning, he straight away stated he will set the case aside, as the other party isn't here.

He mentioned I'll get a letter through the post and then I will need to submit a defence, (I'll check the template defence threads), he will waive the direct questionnaire and then I need to defend the claim at trial.

I asked him if I could ask a question and then said my application was also to have the case dismissed and costs - he stated he hadn't read any of my application and then read it for about 30 seconds, said yes you have some valid points which will need to be raised at trial.

I asked about costs, and he said he would set it as costs reserved.

And that was that I was in and out within 5 minutes.  So I guess (like our other claim, which will can see you posted in thank you and will reply in) we are now waiting for paperwork in the post and then can complete the defence.

Thankfully this has now been set aside.

Coupon-mad

Jolly good!

@confusedparking is ahead of you at Brighton court with 'reserved costs' so you might want to pm each other and even attend each other's hearings, which helps with confidence as you can see what happens in a 'costs reserved' post set aside hearing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81541804/#Comment_81541804