Defence after CCJ set aside.

Foresthare

16/01/2025

WITNESS STATEMENT

DEFENDANT MR 

CLAIMANT UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

RE: N1SDT CLAIM FORM 

 

I, , make this witness statement in support of the application for an order that judgement In this case (claim form ) be set aside.

 

1.      Chronology of events.

a.      24/06/2024 – alleged date of parking offence. No notification received prior to receiving N1SDT claim form. 

b.     03/12/2024 – date on N1SDT form

c.      30/12/2024 – date that I received the N1SDT claim form.

d.     31/12/2024 – date that I contacted both the CNBC and DCB Ltd on to inform them that I had received the claim form late.

e.      12/01/2025 – date that I contacted DCB Ltd to ask to consent to set aside the CCJ. I also subsequently forwarded this email to Sarah Ensor at DCB Ltd on 20/01/2025.

f.        I wasn’t given any opportunity to respond to the claim.

2.      The N1SDT claim form relates to a parking charge allegedly issued to vehicle at .

a.      I did not receive a parking ticket on my vehicle

b.     I did not receive a notification of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd

c.      I did not receive a reminder of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd

d.     I did not receive a final reminder of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd

e.      UK Parking control Ltd has not provided any proof of delivery for any of the above

3.      I have entered a formal complaint against the CNBC that the claim form ostensibly dated “03/12/2024” doesn’t seem to have been posted until much later as it arrived on 30/12/2024. I have requested system evidence of the date the claim form was put in the post. The reference number for the complaint is 

4.      In addition to this I believe there may have been further delays in receiving the claim form due to “Christmas post”.

5.      Furthermore, there are known issues with delays to postal deliveries in the Frome area particularly around Christmas. The following article quotes the Royal Mail explaining that parcels were prioritised over letters during the Christmas period. The local MP, Anne Sabine, has said the issue is “unacceptable” and has had complaints from hundreds of residents who have missed important post such as hospital letters. I have also complained to the MP and await response.

https://www.frometimes.co.uk/mp-backs-residents-complaints-over-unreliable-postal-service/

6.      I believe it is morally and ethically wrong that UK Parking should invoke legal action without first ensuring I was aware of the debt. I believe they should be asked to provide proof positive that I was aware of the offence and the debt given the impact a CCJ can have on an individual.

7.      There is clear evidence that the claim was not served at the point where the claim was entered. The claim form was not served in person, nor was it signed by myself. I will swear under oath to these facts if required. Therefore as a matter of fact and law, the 14 days from the date of actual service had not expired by 30/12/2024.  This means that the time to respond had not started. As per the Denton tests I believe I should get relief from sanctions, as per CPR 13.2. The CCJ must be set aside as per 13.2 or CPR 13.3.

8.      I emailed DCB Ltd on 31/12/2024 to inform them that I have received the claim form after the deadline and asking them to send me the original PCN of which I have never received. I emailed DCB Ltd again on 12/01/2025 to ask them to set aside the CCJ and reinstate the original claim. I have not received any response to either email.

9.      I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I received the claim form through the post on 30/12/2024 and I contacted CNBC and DCB Ltd on 31/12/2024. I contacted DCB Ltd again on 12/01/2025 to ask them for their consent to set aside in order to avoid additional costs to both parties. I have submitted the set aside form on 31/01/2025 after receiving no response from DCB Ltd.

10. In Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carr (Ref. CA-2024-001179) heard on 7th May 2024 the following has been noted (EXHIBIT XX-03 – VCSL v CARR (Ref. CA-2024-001179), avoiding Injustice: "However, the purpose of the power under CPR 13.3 is to avoid injustice, and although a lack of “promptness” in applying to set aside is a mandatory consideration, the rule makes it clear that the overriding objective is paramount. It is far from clear that the Circuit Judge approached the matter from that perspective. I find it telling that there is no mention in her of the overriding objective nor of what the justice of the case

required."

11. Assessing a Judgment in Default (Denton): "Even in a case of relief from sanctions where the delay is lengthy and there is no excuse for it, the court is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, in order to deal justly with the matter: Denton v White. This court

has confirmed that the approach in Denton applies in the context of setting aside a judgment in default: FXF v English Karate Federation [2023] EWCA Civ 891". No opportunity to defend: "There also appears to have been no specific consideration at the third stage of the fact that in practical terms this defendant has never had an opportunity to advance his valid defence irrespective of whether service was property effected at his former address. That is related to but different from the point that he cannot be blamed for failure to respond to the claim form because he never received it.”

12. Both claims made by the claimant refer to a multitude of additional charges:

a.      Court fee

b.     Legal representative’s costs

c.      "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 £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment."  

13. This course of action from the claimant has 3 considerable impacts:

a.      Double intimidation 

b.     Unnecessary duplicated costs exposure 

c.      A deliberate duplication of court time. 

14. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 71 states that fairness in contracts can be brought up in court even if it has not previously been mentioned during proceedings, and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson.

15. Considering all of the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe the default judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, the claim struck out, and I ask the court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £303 from the claimant should this request be successful.

16. 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.

 

Evidence attached

Evidence 1 – 311224 email to CNBC with claim form

Evidence2 - 311224 email to DCB Legal Ltd with claim form

Evidence3 - 120125 - email to DCB Legal Ltd asking to set aside the CCJ

Evidence4 - 120125 - email to CNBC lodging formal complaint regarding postal delays

Evidence5 - 150125 - confirmation of complaint raised with CNBC regarding postal delays

Evidence6 - Frome times article dated 020125 regarding postal delays in Frome area particularly in December 2024

KeithP

@Foresthare, are those your real personal details you have shown the world?

Suggest you edit you post to remove -

• your full name
• your full address
• the Claim Number
• the vehicle's registration mark

Coupon-mad

Foresthare said:

16/01/2025

WITNESS STATEMENT 

DEFENDANT:

CLAIMANT: UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

RE: N1SDT CLAIM FORM xxxxxxxx
 

I, xxxxxxx xxxxx, of
address,
make this witness statement in support of the application for an order that judgement In this case (claim form xxxxxxx) be set aside.
 
1.      Chronology of events. 

a.      24/06/2024 – alleged date of parking event. No notification received prior to receiving N1SDT claim form.
  
b.     03/12/2024 – date on N1SDT form
 
c.      30/12/2024 – date that I received the N1SDT claim form. 

d.     31/12/2024 – date that I contacted both the CNBC and DCB Ltd on to inform them that I had received the claim form late.

e.      12/01/2025 – date that I contacted DCB Ltd to ask to consent to set aside the CCJ. I also subsequently forwarded this email to Sarah Ensor at DCB Ltd on 20/01/2025.

f.        I wasn’t given any opportunity to respond to the claim. 

2.      The N1SDT claim form relates to a parking charge allegedly issued to vehicle xxxx xxx at xxxxxxxxx Leisure Park, xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx . 
a.      I did not receive a parking ticket on my vehicle
b.     I did not receive a notification of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd 
c.      I did not receive a reminder of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd
d.     I did not receive a final reminder of the offence from UK Parking control Ltd 
e.      UK Parking control Ltd has not provided any proof of delivery for any of the above

3.      I have entered a formal complaint against the CNBC that the claim form ostensibly dated “03/12/2024” doesn’t seem to have been posted until much later as it arrived on 30/12/2024. I have requested system evidence of the date the claim form was put in the post. The reference number for the complaint is xxxxxxxxxx. 

4.      In addition to this I believe there may have been further delays in receiving the claim form due to “Christmas post”.

5.      Furthermore, there are known issues with delays to postal deliveries in the Frome area particularly around Christmas. The following article quotes the Royal Mail explaining that parcels were prioritised over letters during the Christmas period. The local MP, Anne Sabine, has said the issue is “unacceptable” and has had complaints from hundreds of residents who have missed important post such as hospital letters. I have also complained to the MP and await response. 
https://www.frometimes.co.uk/mp-backs-residents-complaints-over-unreliable-postal-service/

6.      I believe it is morally and ethically wrong that UK Parking should invoke legal action without first ensuring I was aware of the debt. I believe they should be asked to provide proof positive that I was aware of the offence and the debt given the impact a CCJ can have on an individual. 

7.      There is clear evidence that the claim was not served at the point where the claim was entered. The claim form was not served in person, nor was it signed by myself. I will swear under oath to these facts if required. Therefore as a matter of fact and law, the 14 days from the date of actual service had not expired by 30/12/2024.  This means that the time to respond had not started. As per the Denton tests I believe I should get relief from sanctions, as per CPR 13.2. The CCJ must be set aside as per 13.2 or CPR 13.3.

8.      I emailed DCB Ltd on 31/12/2024 to inform them that I have received the claim form after the deadline and asking them to send me the original PCN of which I have never received. I emailed DCB Ltd again on 12/01/2025 to ask them to set aside the CCJ and reinstate the original claim. I have not received any response to either email.
 
9.      I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I received the claim form through the post on 30/12/2024 and I contacted CNBC and DCB Ltd on 31/12/2024. I contacted DCB Ltd again on 12/01/2025 to ask them for their consent to set aside in order to avoid additional costs to both parties. I have submitted the set aside form on 31/01/2025 after receiving no response from DCB Ltd.

10. In Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carr (Ref. CA-2024-001179) heard on 7th May 2024 the following has been noted (EXHIBIT XX-03 – VCSL v CARR (Ref. CA-2024-001179), avoiding Injustice: "However, the purpose of the power under CPR 13.3 is to avoid injustice, and although a lack of “promptness” in applying to set aside is a mandatory consideration, the rule makes it clear that the overriding objective is paramount. It is far from clear that the Circuit Judge approached the matter from that perspective. I find it telling that there is no mention in her of the overriding objective nor of what the justice of the case
required."

11. Assessing a Judgment in Default (Denton):
 "Even in a case of relief from sanctions where the delay is lengthy and there is no excuse for it, the court is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, in order to deal justly with the matter: Denton v White. This court
has confirmed that the approach in Denton applies in the context of setting aside a judgment in default: FXF v English Karate Federation [2023] EWCA Civ 891". No opportunity to defend: "There also appears to have been no specific consideration at the third stage of the fact that in practical terms this defendant has never had an opportunity to advance his valid defence irrespective of whether service was property effected at his former address. That is related to but different from the point that he cannot be blamed for failure to respond to the claim form because he never received it.”

12. Both claims made by the claimant refer to a multitude of additional charges:
a.      Court fee
b.     Legal representative’s costs
c.      "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 £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment."

13. This course of action from the claimant has 3 considerable impacts: 
a.      Double intimidation  
b.     Unnecessary duplicated costs exposure  
c.      A deliberate duplication of court time.

14. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 71 states that fairness in contracts can be brought up in court even if it has not previously been mentioned during proceedings,  and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson.

15. Considering all of the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe the default judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside, the claim struck out, and I ask the court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £303 from the claimant should this request be successful.

16. 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.
 
Evidence attached
Evidence 1 – 311224 email to CNBC with claim form
Evidence2 - 311224 email to DCB Legal Ltd with claim form
Evidence3 - 120125 - email to DCB Legal Ltd asking to set aside the CCJ
Evidence4 - 120125 - email to CNBC lodging formal complaint regarding postal delays
Evidence5 - 150125 - confirmation of complaint raised with CNBC regarding postal delays
Evidence6 - Frome times article dated 020125 regarding postal delays in Frome area particularly in December 2024

Properly data redacted version above.

You need to redact your personal details from this forum!

Also it is not an 'offence'. Use 'event'.

And why does your WS include this specific statement? You don't mention that this is one of 2 claims?

"and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson."

Foresthare

Thanks... probably shouldn't have done this after a long day at work. I think I've edited it all out. 

There's just 1 claim, that's a mistake. 

Thank you - will change to event. 

Coupon-mad

Wait until you are past the deadline you gave to DCB Legal then submit the N244 bundle including your costs assessment and a Draft Order as seen in other CCJ set aside threads.

1505grandad

"....make this witness statement in support of the application for an order that judgement In this case...."

A heads-up  -  there is no middle "e" in Judgment in this context (also in another sentence para 15)  -  see the other instances of the correct spelling in your doc.

Foresthare

Hello again,

I submitted the N244 along with costs assessment and draft order yesterday (03/02/2025) and paid the £303 fee. (no mean feat after being cut off from the phone line 3 times and queuing for almost an hour!)

Today I have finally received a response from DCB Ltd:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

We write in relation to the above matter.

Upon reviewing the evidence provided with our Client, we can confirm that they are agreeable to setting Judgment aside.

Please find attached the Claimant's proposed Consent Order.

Should you be agreeable to the attached Order, please sign and return such within 14 days from the date of this email.

Once received, we will countersign the Order and file this with the Court once a Hearing date is provided.

Along with the email they have attached the following CONSENT ORDER:

Before an Officer of the Court 

UPON the Claimant and the Defendant having agreed to the terms of this Order; 

AND UPON Claimant accepting that, although the claim was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not received the Claim until after the Judgment was entered; 

AND UPON the Defendant not having the opportunity to respond to the Claim Form; 

AND UPON the parties agreeing that, in view of the above, there is some other good reason for Judgment to be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3; 

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:- 

1. The Judgment entered herein on the 30/12/2024 be and is hereby set aside. 

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

3. The Claim be reallocated to the Small Claims Track. 

4. The Defendant to file and serve a Defence within 14 days. 

5. In default of paragraph 4, the Claimant will be at liberty to enter Judgment against the Defendant. 

6. There be no order as to costs.

My question now, is what does this mean and what should I do? 

I think what this means is that they will agree to a set aside, which would mean I don't have a CCJ on my record (good thing). But they still wish to pursue the claim and will not pay my costs. Does point 4 mean that they want me to submit a defence to the original ticket within 14 days? 

As always, appreciate any help understanding this. 

Coupon-mad

You've spent the £303 now.

But your case is unusual in that it was simply a massive postal delay. Not DCB's fault.

So you could:

- sign that Consent Order and

- forward it to the local court once the application is allocated there, asking for directions as a hearing may not be needed, and

- pursue the £303 actual loss caused as a direct result of the CNBC's error/omission: they clearly didn't post a batch of post when they say they did. HMCTS complaint asking for compensation.

Another thought is URGENTLY phone the fees number at the CNBC again and ask to amend your application to 'without a hearing' and pay the £119 fee instead.

P.S. The 14 days to defend is way off!
The time would start from when the local Judge uses this as the basis for their Order.

Foresthare

I called the CNBC and they said I would need to email the applications team. Which I have done. They didn't know whether there is any likelihood of getting a refund. 

I'll await court allocation then do as suggested. I will then need to work on a defence to the original claim. 

I've already had my complaint closed regarding the postal delays - 

"I'm sorry to hear you've had cause to complain as you didn't receive your Claim notification until 30th December, which didn't give you time to defend the claim. I understand this is particularly frustrating for you as you now have a Count Court Judgment against your Credit File.

Having investigated

I can see from the case file the claim was created on 3 December and posted by 2nd class Royal Mail on the same day. The claim was deemed served on the 8th December and a response was required 14 days after the date of service. I'm sorry the claim form didn't reach you in time to respond. Things can take longer to be delivered during the Christmas period. "

I'm not sure I could pursue CNBC for the delays - as evidenced in the news article I found - it is likely the delays are mostly due to Royal Mail and the Christmas post. CNBC even admitted the Christmas post is a factor! 

Coupon-mad

" and posted by 2nd class Royal Mail"

Not allowed!

Escalate the complaint. Claim forms must be posted First Class and the CNBC has admitted it was posted second class.

Not sure where in the CPRs this is stated but it is a requirement. @Johnersh or @bargepole do you know the rule?


This is a complete mess and you should not have had to pay a fee.  Have the court admitted fault?

AND - IMPORTANT:

Please find time this week/end to send an email response to this vital (renewed for 2025) Call for Evidence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81070874/#Comment_81070874

It closes next week.

Recount your experiences please. Attach a word document evidence sheet (the only format they accept).

PLEASE tell the CJC what parking firms are doing to consumers and bringing the county court service to its knees, AND HOW THE COURTS ARE GETTING THINGS WRONG, AND EVIDENCE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU.

You are an important source of evidence to inform the CJC.  

These firms are using MCOL and the free Mediator (handed to them in a plate to support claimants, which is horrifically unjust for victims of parking firms who feel bullied into settling) as a cheap form of intimidation and debt collection.This isn't justice.  Why is HMCTS not just allowing this but positively enabling it? Rogue parking companies are ruining people's credit and clogging up the family courts with half a million utterly meritless parking claims per year. Causing 90% CCJs and with little or no intention of attending hearings.

This caused you a CCJ. Tell the CJC that the CNBC is using second class post for Claim Forms before Christmas!  Prove it by attaching their email and a word doc showing your CCJ and complaints made.