PCM Numerous PCNs in Own Bay - kind of

Le_Kirk

You send your defence to the same court where your set-aside was held, local court unless there were instructions to the contrary in the judgment.   Did the judgment say you have to submit a defence , i.e brand new, first time OR an amended defence?

ParkingParrot

Le_Kirk said:

You send your defence to the same court where your set-aside was held, local court unless there were instructions to the contrary in the judgment.   Did the judgment say you have to submit a defence , i.e brand new, first time OR an amended defence?

the judge said very little in the hearing, only that we should submit a defence by a date in December. We have received no correspondence since (should this be expected). 
We haven't submitted a defence to this point as we were unaware of the claim until after it was decided. I will call the court to confirm, email it and hand deliver a copy to be sure. 
I assume that the witness statement and other docs will be required closer to the date?

Coupon-mad

ParkingParrot said:

to clarify, following the set-aside, we must now submit a defence. should this be via MCOL as per the newbies thread or straight to the local court (copying in claimant)?

secondly, on my case, thanks to Coupon-mad for the above, i do not wish to regurgitate my WS in the skeleton argument, so will concentrate only on the:
- abuse of process
- lease
- management letter and date of resumption of the permit scheme

attaching the relevant evidence.

But none of that is for a skeleton argument. It's not a way to introduce evidence.

If you want to add more evidence then you'd need a Supplementary WS but why are you trying to add evidence about the PCN and circumstances? The first hearing is about why the CCJ was improper (sent to an old address?) and nothing else.

Not only that, the unserved POC never even pleaded a specified breach, so there's NO PLEADED ALLEGATION for you to respond to. Don't waste your CCJ set aside hearing that you paid for, by distracting the judge into starting to conduct a mini-trial of the PCN!

VCS v Carr is what you should be talking about at the hearing.

Mere silence to pre-action letters is 'reason to believe' you'd moved (the Court of Appeal Judges even said that exact thing in the Carr hearing and they stated that a DVLA vehicle address is merely the starting point, not an assumed address for service).

The authority of Carr MUST be followed and provides binding precedent for:

1. CCJ set aside

2. claim dismissed for want of service within the fixed 4 month limitation (it is expired and cannot be resurrected by a court)

3  Defendant's costs awarded because the case was never allocated to track, so there are costs in the case.

Google what a skeleton argument is, then search the forum for parking CCJ examples done before. It is ONLY a way to summarise  and help the judge to follow your legal arguments (1, 2, 3 above) and also CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande due to the Claimant's (unserved) POC not meeting Part 16 rules.

If the judge starts by saying "well this won't take long because {smiles} you are lucky, the C has agreed to your application so I don't need to hear from you" ... IMMEDIATELY politely but VERY clearly say:

"I'm sorry but no, Judge!

I do not accept their draft Order. The claim was improperly served (never served) and was inadequately pleaded.

So, pursuant to the authorities of Chan, Akande and the binding Court of Appeal CCJ set aside case this year, of VCS v Carr (see my skeleton) as the innocent party in a wrongful CCJ case, the authority provides for

1. CCJ set aside

2. claim dismissed for want of service within the fixed 4 months limitation (per VCS v Carr the claim is expired and cannot be resurrected by a court), and

3  Defendant's costs awarded because the case was never allocated to track, so there are costs in the case."

ParkingParrot

DRAFT SKELETON ARGUMENT taken from a recent example:

Case number
xxxx
___________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT
___________________________________


1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated xxxxxxx 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 Joint Professional Code of Practice to which the Claimant is obliged to adhere.

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 Rd, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at xxxxx on xxx November 2022, as evidenced by his solicitors completion letter and council tax bill, submitted to the court as part of the initial application bundle in May 2025.

2.1.3 In their witness statement, the Claimant’s representative claims that the defendant “…did not inform the claimant of any address changes.” For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant today re-attaches this evidence (Exb 7b), along with his original witness statement which clearly states the defendant has moved from this address.

2.1.4 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. The Claimants representative confirmed on the telephone that the previous and only address search was carried out xxx August 2021, around 3 years before the claim was issued.

2.1.5 The Defendant has provided Exhibit xx, an email to the claimants representatives, confirming that the defendant no longer resided at this address. The claimant has included this same email in their own Witness Statement (xxx). This is at a minimum, a “reason to believe” the defendant no longer lived at the address. Serving the claim to this address could amount to abuse of process and the claimant intended for the case to be awarded against the defendant in their absence. 

2.1.6 This failure to ensure proper service 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 as an appendix for the court’s reference.

2.2 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

2.2.1 If the court finds that, despite the wealth of evidence and precedent presented to the contrary, the claim was in fact properly served, the Judgment must still be set aside in accordance with CPR 13.3 because the following conditions are met: 
2.2.2 The defendant has a real prospect of defending the claim. As the below precedents show, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in this case. 
2.2.3 Defendant has applied promptly for a set-aside: He was initially made aware of the Judgment checking his credit file on xxx April 2025, notified the Claimant of his intention to apply for set aside on xxx May 2025 and submitted an application for set-aside to the court after an waiting out the notice period provided to the Claimant, on xxxx May 2025.
2.2.4 In making the decision to set-aside, the court should consider the overriding objective. Since the Defendant was not in receipt of the Claim Form or Particulars of the Claim, he has had no opportunity to defend it, and should, at the very least, be offered an opportunity to do so.
 

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 claim was dismissed for want of service within the fixed 4 month limitation
3.1.4 The initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing is provided as an appendix 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 in the PoC, 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 xxx March 2025, 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 or, in the alternative, as expired.

c. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, including £313 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: 1 October 2025

SIGNED: 

DEFENDANT

Coupon-mad

Looks good except don't attach the "Initial findings from the Court of Appeal" which I think were from March; that was only an interim short decision allowing an appeal to be heard.

Refer to the final CoA hearing which I think was in May. Link to the hearing and transcript. 

1505grandad

"2.1.4 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. The Claimants representative confirmed on the telephone that the previous and only address search was carried out xxx August 2021, around 3 years before the claim was issued."

An observation  -  does the above need amending re ATA and CoP?