Recent CCJ - Advice Needed

Coupon-mad

Your numbering has gone wrong from 17.1 onwards due to copying from another WS.  And you've copied a wrong date:

"In this case, the claim form was not validly served in August 2024 due to failure to check for a current address"

I'm not sure that the WS quite captures & states clearly at/near the start that DCB Group knew or should have known that you lived in Aberdeen and THAT was the wholly unreasonable conduct in this case.

You've missed what I edited to add to (b) here:

"Change the start of the WS to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 03 December 2024 (Claim No: #####) on the basis it was not properly served at my current address. 

b. Strike out the original claim which has expired unserved and because my actual address is outside of jurisdiction. The Claimants knew or should have known (look how easily they found me after the CCJ) that I live in Aberdeen, outside of the jurisdiction but served the claim to an older 2023 English address. They had to first apply to the court under CPR 6.15 for permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction but they did not.

c. Order reimbursement of the set-aside fee of £313 from the Claimant, plus travel and other costs relating to this application and attendance at any hearing(s) in England. These costs being awarded on the indemnity basis, the claim having never been allocated to any track and due to the wholly unreasonable conduct in this litigation. Pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and relying upon the persuasive and detailed authority of Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025)."

1505grandad

Are the correct details of the recent VCS vs Carr case correct in para 11?

cda17

ChirpyChicken said:

You send it here

Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

You can pay tomorrow to save the increase in cost and send the application when ready it doesn't have to be done on the same day

I send my application and supporting documents via email not by post?

cda17

Coupon-mad said:

Your numbering has gone wrong from 17.1 onwards due to copying from another WS.  And you've copied a wrong date:

"In this case, the claim form was not validly served in August 2024 due to failure to check for a current address"

I'm not sure that the WS quite captures & states clearly at/near the start that DCB Group knew or should have known that you lived in Aberdeen and THAT was the wholly unreasonable conduct in this case.

You've missed what I edited to add to (b) here:

"Change the start of the WS to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 03 December 2024 (Claim No: #####) on the basis it was not properly served at my current address. 

b. Strike out the original claim which has expired unserved and because my actual address is outside of jurisdiction. The Claimants knew or should have known (look how easily they found me after the CCJ) that I live in Aberdeen, outside of the jurisdiction but served the claim to an older 2023 English address. They had to first apply to the court under CPR 6.15 for permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction but they did not.

c. Order reimbursement of the set-aside fee of £313 from the Claimant, plus travel and other costs relating to this application and attendance at any hearing(s) in England. These costs being awarded on the indemnity basis, the claim having never been allocated to any track and due to the wholly unreasonable conduct in this litigation. Pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and relying upon the persuasive and detailed authority of Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025)."

I have fixed WS numbering on previous comment.

ChirpyChicken

cda17 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

You send it here

Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

You can pay tomorrow to save the increase in cost and send the application when ready it doesn't have to be done on the same day

I send my application and supporting documents via email not by post?

Yes no reason not to

cda17

Just looking through my Credit Check Trace that I did on 25 January 2025 with CheckMyFile, it shows a soft search done on me on the day of the CCJ (3rd December 2024) - which again shows my current address in Aberdeen. It was done by a company called Trulioo Information Services Inc. (see pic below).



I wonder if this was instructed by DCBL. Ill be sending this all as supporting documents to my application.

There is also no "bulk trace" searches recorded on the dates that DCBL emailed me saying they did on my SAR request - surely they would show up on this if so?

Coupon-mad

cda17 said:

Just looking through my Credit Check Trace that I did on 25 January 2025 with CheckMyFile, it shows a soft search done on me on the day of the CCJ (3rd December 2024) - which again shows my current address in Aberdeen. It was done by a company called Trulioo Information Services Inc. (see pic below).



I wonder if this was instructed by DCBL. Ill be sending this all as supporting documents to my application.

That will surely be them, I'd suggest.

There is also no "bulk trace" searches recorded on the dates that DCBL emailed me saying they did on my SAR request - surely they would show up on this if so?

Ask the Judge that question by posing it in your WS!

Here's the exhibit for Orton v Barclaycard, re costs. Add this link to your WS:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC12.html

The August date is totally wrong. That was copied from someone else's case.

cda17

UPDATED WS 02-04-2025:

List of Exhibits and WS below.

EXHIBIT XX-01 – Letter from DCBL to my Aberdeen Address

EXHIBIT XX-02 – Tenancy Agreement, utility bill, driver’s licence.

EXHIBIT XX-03 – CheckMyFile Credit Check

EXHIBIT XX-04 – Particulars of Claim

EXHIBIT XX-05 – Letter sent to Claimant and DCBL

EXHIBIT XX-06 – SAR Response

EXHIBIT XX-07 – VCSL v CARR (Ref. CA-2024-001179)

EXHIBIT XX-08 – N244 Form

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MY NAME

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No: ##### Judgment Date: 03 December 2024

 

I, MY NAME, of CURRENT ABERDEEN ADDRESS, am the Defendant in this matter and make the following statement in support of my application dated 31 March 2025 to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 03 December 2024 (Claim No: #####) on the basis it was not properly served at my current address.

b. Strike out the original claim which has expired unserved and because my actual address is outside of jurisdiction. The Claimants knew or should have known (look how easily they found me after the CCJ) that I live in Aberdeen, outside of the jurisdiction but served the claim to an older 2023 English address. They had to first apply to the court under CPR 6.15 for permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction, but they did not.

c. Order reimbursement of the set-aside fee of £313 from the Claimant, plus travel and other costs relating to this application and attendance at any hearing(s) in England. These costs being awarded on the indemnity basis, the claim having never been allocated to any track and due to the wholly unreasonable conduct in this litigation. Pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and relying upon the persuasive and detailed authority of Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025).

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
   
   
2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a default judgment against me on 03 December 2024. I believe the claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice dated 25 August 2023.
   
   
3. The claim form was not served at my current address, and I was unaware of the County Court Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) dated 20 January 2025, which arrived on 25 January 2025. (See EXHIBIT XX-01)
   
   
4. The address on the claim is MANCHESTER ADDRESS. I moved from this address on 28 September 2023 to FRANCE ADDRESS, and then to ABERDEEN ADDRESS 1 on 28 June 2024. I moved to my current address on 14 October 2024. Evidence of these moves is provided, including tenancy agreement, utility bills, and my driving licence. (See EXHIBIT XX-02)
   
   
5. I discovered the judgment only upon receipt of the DCBL letter on 25 January 2025, dated 20 January 2025. I had no knowledge of this claim prior to that letter.
   
   
6. At the time the claim was issued and served, I was no longer residing in England or Wales. I had moved to Scotland, with my residence at ABERDEEN ADDRESS 1 from 28 June 2024, and subsequently to my current address at CURRENT ABERDEEN ADDRESS. These addresses are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
   
   
7. Under CPR 6.36 and Practice Direction 6B, a Claimant must obtain permission from the court to serve proceedings outside of the jurisdiction. No such permission was sought or granted in this case. The Claimant attempted to proceed without following these necessary steps, further invalidating the service of the claim and strengthening the grounds for setting aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2.
   
   
8. In a state of panic, I attempted to contact the Civil National Business Centre on 25 January 2025, but it was the weekend, and I could not get through. I then checked TrustOnline and Checkmyfile.com to verify the judgment and confirm when my more recent addresses were listed. (See EXHIBIT XX-03).
   
   
9. On 27 January 2025, I contacted the Civil National Business Centre again and received an email with the Particulars of Claim. (See EXHIBIT XX-04). I also contacted Spring Parking Ltd and DCBL via letter and email to inform them the claim had been sent to an old address, contrary to CPR 6.9, and invited them to consent to setting aside the judgment. (See EXHIBIT XX-05).
   
   
10. On 17 February 2025, An acknowledgement was received via email confirming receipt of my letter and an acknowledgement the correspondence been sent to an old address; they requested evidence of my new address(s) to review the matter further.
    
    
11. On 26 February 2025, DCBL emailed me proposing me to pay a higher fee than the CCJ (£408.56) in return for the submission of a joint application Consent Order. I replied declining this offer and inviting them again to jointly apply to set aside the judgment with less fees, in which they declined one month later, on 26 March 2025.
    
    
12. The Claimant has behaved unreasonably by failing to ensure the claim was served at my correct address. They had access to tools to find my address, as demonstrated by the fact that they eventually located me immediately upon judgment. In fact, my Credit Check at Exhibit XX-03 shows one 'soft trace' carried out to look for my address on the very day of the CCJ. It shows of course that I've lived in Aberdeen during most of 2024, but this address check was either not done, or was conveniently ignored, before litigation. Yet in DCB Legal's response (Exhibit XX-06 – SAR Response) they stated that they did carry out a soft trace. The court may draw its own conclusions.
    
    
13. Their failure to take reasonable steps before litigation is a breach of CPR 6.9 and the BPA Code of Practice.
    
    
14. Due to their failure to serve the claim correctly, I was denied the opportunity to defend the claim. Pursuant to CPR 13.2, the judgment must be set aside. I have acted promptly upon finding out about it, but the claim is a nullity because it was never served as I live in Aberdeen which my Credit Check showed all along was my 'last known address'.
    
    
15. BPA Code of Practice Clause 24.1C requires operators to take reasonable steps to ensure contact details are correct before issuing proceedings. The Claimant failed in this duty.
    
    
16. This failure places a burden on the justice system and on individuals who, like myself, were unaware of the proceedings until post-judgment enforcement.
    
    
17. I dispute the inflated claim amount, and believe it is excessive and unjustified.
    
    
18. I wish to draw the court’s attention to the official recording from the Court of Appeal of this decision for a parking CCJ set aside case where the Defendant was served at an old address despite the Claimant later being able to locate the current one, mirroring my circumstances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs). Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carr (Ref. CA-2024-001179) heard on 4 March 2025 the following has been noted (EXHIBIT XX-07 – VCSL v CARR (Ref. CA-2024-001179):
    
    

18.1. 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."

19. 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"

20. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if at the date on which judgment is entered (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence to the claim (or any part of the claim); and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired. In this case, the claim form was not validly served due to failure to check for a current address (CPR 6.9 (3)), therefore the time limit for acknowledging service has not begun. As the time limit has not begun it cannot have expired. As the time limit has not expired the condition in CPR 12.3(1)(b) has not been satisfied. This results in a mandatory set aside (CPR 13.2). It follows that:

20.1 If a claim is set aside for failure to be served, then the claim cannot be resurrected and served again after 4 months has passed from the date of filing pursuant to CPR 7.5(1). This is on point with the court of appeal in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (09 February 2016):

20.2. “Moreover, I do not consider that the CPR presents an obstacle in the circumstances of this case to setting aside judgment. CPR 13.2 provides that the court must set aside a default judgment where any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied. The latter provision does not apply, but the former is relevant. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired (my italics). I accept Mr McLaren's argument that when an order for retrospective validation of an alternative method of service has been made pursuant to CPR 6.15(2) the relevant time for filing an acknowledgement of service is the period which the court must specify under CPR 6.15(4)(c). Where, as in this case, the court did not specify any such time there can be no relevant time which has expired for the purposes of CPR 12.3(1). If this analysis is correct the requirements of CPR 12.3(1)(b) have not been satisfied and so the court is obliged to set aside the default judgment pursuant to CPR 13.2(a).

20.3. I do not see it as a draconian consequence that a judgment, obtained after deemed service has been affected without specifying a time for that service to be acknowledged, should be set aside as of right in such a case. I agree that CPR 13.2 specifies the circumstances in which a default judgment must be set aside and in my judgment one of those circumstances is when judgment is entered in default of an acknowledgement of service when "any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) …was not satisfied". Here, one such condition was not satisfied, namely the time for acknowledgement of service had not expired, because none had ever become applicable.

20.4. This, to my mind, is not "playing technical games" (c.f. the passage from the Abela case, cited at paragraph 11 in the judgment of Longmore LJ). It is merely applying the principle that due process should be followed. If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgement. He is simply not in default at all.”

21. Considering all the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment 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 £313 from the claimant, plus travel and other costs relating to this application and attendance at any hearing(s) in England should this request be successful.

22. In Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC Trading as Barclay Card [2025] EWCC 12 (27 March 2025) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2025/CC12.html - HHJ Robinson BEM had an appeal brought before him in the County Court at Middlesbrough to deal with Unreasonable behaviour per CPR 27.14(2)(g). HHJ Robinson dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Judge’s decision, confirming that CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows a costs order where a party has behaved unreasonably. The Appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded. The Court also gave Obiter observations suggesting a potential 4-stage framework to guide future assessments of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g):

- Proof – Is the alleged conduct proven?
- Seriousness – Is the conduct serious/significant enough to require explanation?
- Explanation – Is there a good reason for the conduct?
- Reasonableness – Do any other reasonable explanations emerge when considering the whole case?

22.1. The Claimant’s conduct meets these stages because they failed to check my address, persisted post-judgment despite being informed, and offered unreasonable settlement terms.

23. On 31 March 2025, I submitted my case to set-aside this judgment myself and fairly present my case (EXHIBIT XX-08 – N244 Form)

 

Statement of Truth: 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.

Signed: ________________________ Date: ________________________

 

DRAFT ORDER BELOW:

 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No: ######

Between:

Spring Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

MY NAME (Defendant)

UPON reading the Defendant’s application and supporting witness statement; 

AND UPON it appearing that the Claimant was not entitled to default judgment, having failed to serve the claim form at the Defendant’s current address; 

AND UPON it further appearing that the Defendant was residing outside the jurisdiction of the court at the time the claim was issued, and no permission to serve out of jurisdiction was sought under CPR 6.36;

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated 3 December 2024 in claim number ##### be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

2. The claim be struck out on the grounds that service was invalid and the claim expired under CPR 7.5, not having been properly served within 4 months of issue.

3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application in the sum of £313, plus reasonable travel and associated expenses relating to this application and attendance at any hearing(s) in England, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

 

Dated: 02 April 2025

Coupon-mad

Couple of improvements:

Typo:

driver’s license has no 's' in licence.

I don't think it's at all clear that paras 21, 22 and 23 are quotes from Dubai Financial Group, so they - the whole paragraphs of quotes - need to be in italics and that case parties' names do, too.

The parties names in VCS v Carr must also be in italics as that's the norm for authorities.

And shorten para 20 by splitting off 'It follows that...' (onwards) as a paragraph 20.1.

I'd make this stronger:

The Claimant has behaved unreasonably by failing to ensure the claim was served at my correct address. They had access to tools to find my address, as demonstrated by the fact that they eventually located me immediately upon judgment. In fact my Credit Check at Exhibit XX-03 only shows one 'soft trace' carried out to look for my address on the very day of the CCJ. It shows of course that I've lived in Aberdeen during most of 2024, but this address check was either not done, or was conveniently ignored, before litigation. Yet in DCB Legal's response (Exhibit XX-NEW EXHIBIT - add this) they stated that they did carry out a soft trace. The court may draw its own conclusions.

I don't think that you should offer this alternative in your case so I'd delete it because you live in Scotland and were never served so there's nothing to defend in the English court. :

Due to their failure to serve the claim correctly, I was denied the opportunity to defend the claim. Pursuant to CPR 13.2, the judgment must be set aside. Alternatively, under CPR 13.3, I have acted promptly and have good prospects of defending the claim.

You could replace that final sentence with:

I have acted promptly upon finding out about it but the claim is a nullity because it was never served and I live in Aberdeen which my Credit Check showed all along was my 'last known address'.

1505grandad

"The parties names in VCS v Carr must also be in italics as that's the norm for authorities."

So just checking re my previous post is the date stated in para 18 ( May 2024) correct   -  or should it be March 2025 as per C-m's post:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81375763/#Comment_81375763