Multiple PCN's from National Parking Control, in a Hire Car

Coupon-mad

Your application is under CPR 13.2 (mandatory set aside because the claim wasn't properly served).

Not the CPR 13.3 discretionary set aside they are mumbling on about, to frighten you.

However, be ready for the judge to also approach this wrongly (judges are solicitors who may be swayed by DCB Legal and they often open with musings about CPR 13.3 thinking he/she has discretion to refuse your application).

Politely say: "No judge. This is a mandatory set aside…" also be ready to explain the Code of Practice requirement for a 'soft search' before litigation. Your address was there to be found and the burden isn't yours. It was the C's burden to check the address first and they cannot rely on the DVLA address alone.

This was confirmed in VCS v Carr, where the Court of Appeal said that the DVLA vehicle address is "merely a starting point".

Be insistent on getting your costs, too. Ask at the end and say that "the usual costs rule applies" and that the case was never allocated to the small claims track, so that limit doesn't apply.

StJohn81

Check out the reply I got back from DCB legal, following my rebuttal of their 'credit washing' claim:

Dear ******* 

I write in relation to your previous correspondence. 

We confirm that, upon review of the matter, our Client is willing to agree for Judgment to be set aside on the basis that a £300.00 settlement of the Claim be paid. 

Please find the attached. 

Should you be agreeable, payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

(bank details given etc)

So, I imagine I'm to take this as their last attempt to squeeze some money from me before the court date where I continue with my stance?!

Coupon-mad

Yes. You don't have to reply to them.

StJohn81

As i thought! Thanks

An interesting development since then;

They've asked for the CCJ to be set aside, they say they have requested this with the Registry Trust Limited, they've asked for the case to be dismissed, but said that if I ask the judge to give me the court costs that's a no-no, based on:

"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"

They have excused their non-attendance also.

Is it possible that I still get my costs?

Coupon-mad

Show us their email and attached Draft Order that I assume you mean?

Did they send this to your court too?

The upcoming hearing is YOUR hearing and you can certainly get your costs because the case was a default CCJ & was never allocated to the small claims track.

They are misleading you by saying that track 'would have' applied. Truth is, it didn't! This is wholly unreasonable to mislead you about costs rules.

StJohn81

Their email:

Dear Sirs,

 We act for the Claimant in the above matter. 

Please see attached.

We would be grateful for the attached to be added to the Court file in readiness of the upcoming hearing. 

The Defendant is copied in by way of service. 

Kind Regards,

XXXX

Their draft order:

Dear Sirs,
National Parking Control Group Limited -v- xxxxxxxxx
Claim Number: xxxxxxxxxx

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 20/01/2026 and 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”.

Despite the above, we proposed the enclosed Consent Order to the Defendant 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. However, the Defendant was not
willing to agree to the same.

We respectfully excuse our Client’s attendance at the Hearing listed 03/06/2026. This is
meant with no disrespect to the Court, but is a decision made to save incurring any further
costs and ask that the Judge consider the Draft Order enclosed.

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.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

That's not the actual draft order. They'll called it a 'Consent Order' in that blurb (not even a DRAFT Consent Order)!

Does it have your name typed at the bottom?

You haven't consented!

Show it.

This is designed to trick the judge IMHO.

StJohn81

The Draft Order - (it didn't attach in the last comment)

Yes they put my name here.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXX CLAIM NUMBER: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN: -
NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL GROUP LIMITED
CLAIMANT
AND
xxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT

DRAFT ORDER
Before District Judge ___________________________

UPON considering the Defendant’s N244 Application to set aside Judgment dated 20/01/2026;
It is hereby ordered as follows: -

1. The Judgment entered herein on 05/08/2025 be and are 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 dismissed; and
4. There be no order as to costs.
   Dated _________________

StJohn81

And no, I haven't consented to anything, no replies to any of the above.

I'm just printing it and bringing it with me, with all the other docs and correspondence.

Coupon-mad

They haven't applied to Registry Trust. They are merely suggesting this Order.

Remember what I said earlier, the "no judge" speech. Have it ready because we've had reports of judges saying as soon as you walk in "Good news! I don't need to hear from you because the Claimant has consented…"

"NO JUDGE, this is my hearing for my application and I did not consent to their terms, whereby they are trying to wriggle out of paying my costs. Moreover, they emailed and tried to mislead the court and me about the normal costs rule…"

…insist on getting your costs, too. Ask at the end and say that "the usual costs rule applies" and that the case was never allocated to the small claims track, so that limit doesn't apply.

Oh and don't forget that VCS v Carr also says that the claim has expired as 4 months has passed. The CoA agreed with DJ Iyer on that fact. There's NO COURT DISCRETION to resurrect a claim that expired without being properly served.

So the whole lot - the claim - ends here and per the usual rule and (because the case was never allocated to any track) they tried to mislead with their email and you MUST get your costs in full. Same as in VCS v Carr where the costs were five figures and the Defendant won.

Also don't let the judge start by questioning when you updated your address. You had no duty to update them and cannot be criticised.

They had the duty to check, under the CPRs and under the industry Code of Practice which makes a soft trace just prior to litigation mandatory. And your timeline of what you did when, is irrelevant. They cannot assume months later that an address is still current for litigation. If that was OK the CoP wouldn't have the clause about a mandatory soft trace pre-litigation (it doesn't say in the industry CoP "but you don't have to bother to check the address under x and y circumstances").

TBF I reviewed your AI summaries and they aren't wrong!