Is there any hope now?

Otherman

Sorry this is so messy

ChirpyChicken

No we need to know what was in the application
Please copy and paste what was put in the application

Otherman

Sorry I probably haven’t done this correctly 

Otherman

Apologies for appearance

Coupon-mad

That's all fine. There was almost a YEAR between the address he gave when appealing in 2023 and them filing a claim.

He would have been easily traceable in 2024 I assume, from his credit trail (bank and phone contract address, plus being on the electoral roll by late 2024)?

However, he needs more; add a skeleton argument similar to the one which @Truss_me also added later in their case (there is no deadline for a skelly).

It needs to attach or link to:

1.  - VCS v Carr as the binding authority that a CCJ served to an old address must be set aside and costs awarded to the D;

2.  - A copy of his own credit report (assuming it's helpful and shows his address trail in 2024);

3. - A link to the BPA Code of Practice, Jan 2024 version, which has a clause that operators MUST check address data before litigation.

Gladstones WS will say they did a trace but they never prove it. Do not ask them to prove it; just point out at the hearing that everything Gladstones say is hearsay, they don't even appear to have had the papers until late 2024 anyway, have not attached any evidence of any address trace attempted, AND ... neither they nor their clients have turned up at the hearing.

Finish by saying to the judge: As the case was never 'allocated to track', there are costs in the case to be determined and the Defendant doesn't even have a burden to show 'unreasonable conduct' but it's right there plainly shown by the empty chair at this hearing and failure to trace the right address in 2024.

Otherman

@Coupon-mad
Thankyou so much!
Feeling a little more confident now. Have read the Truss-me thread.
I presume we send the skeleton argument to the court that the hearing will be at ? (Slough)

1505grandad

"1.  - VCS v Carr as the binding authority that a CCJ served to an old address must be set aside and costs awarded to the D;"

Newly posted curtesy of @ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612281/court-of-appeal-judgment-carr-vs-vehicle-control-services-ltd#latest

Coupon-mad

Otherman said:

@Coupon-mad
Thankyou so much!
Feeling a little more confident now. Have read the Truss-me thread.
I presume we send the skeleton argument to the court that the hearing will be at ? (Slough)

Yes and cc in the solicitors.

Otherman

Please could someone kindly review this skeleton argument? Case is in 2 weeks. 
Greatfully copied from @Truss_me
Are CPMS v Akande and CEL v Chan relevant ? 

1. Introduction

• 1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dated xxxxxx, 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 an old address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time There was almost a year between address given at time of PCN and Claimant filing a claim. The Defendant was easily traceable by bank/credit card and electoral roll.
• 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. A transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing is attached separately.

2.2 Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

• 2.1.1 The defendant has no recollection of driving this vehicle and does not confirm that he was driving vehicle (registration xxx xxx)as vehicle did not belong to him
• 2.2.2 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, an overarching doctrine for judges to be mindful about (fair, timely low cost resolution), 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 A transcript of 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:

• Set aside the default judgment dated xxxxxx as it was not correctly served at the Defendant's current address.
• Strike out the claim for failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5.
• Order the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs, including £303 for the fee of making.

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: 10/07/2025

SIGNED: xxxxx

DEFENDANT

REFERENCES

• VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025) https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713?court=ewca/civ

• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)
• CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) 
• BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

Otherman

I realise conclusion needs to be re numbered 😳