Is there any hope now?

Otherman

Also in Gladstones WS they say that they found a possible alternative address,by trace, for D but received no reply to their correspondence . They say D failed to make contact but won’t give address stating GDPR. So they are blaming D for not being at that address either! That seems to be their justification for submitting claim 🤷‍♀️

Coupon-mad

I think it's good but also look at the wording used today by @gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612224/another-out-of-the-blue-ccj-from-dcbl/p9

Otherman

 Please could you give this a quick look over? Thankyou so much for your time ! 

I have merged both resources that you recommended.

Introduction

• 1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dated xxxxx, 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. Under Clause 24.1 C of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 8 (January 2020), “Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.” The Claimant failed to take reasonable endeavours to ascertain my correct current address prior to issuing proceedings and is therefore in breach of the 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. A simple and inexpensive "soft trace" (costing 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant's current address.

2.1.4 This failure mirrors the binding authority 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. Consequently the County Court’s order for repayment of VCS’ costs and the claim was struck out. A transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing is attached.

Considering all of the above, I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus I therefore respectfully request that the claim is struck out pursuant to the reasons and principles in the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] 

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 xxxxxx) as vehicle was not registered to him. In Defendant’s email dated 14/11/23 (in Gladstones Solicitors WS) he stated he was referring to VRN= xxxxxxxx
• 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.

3.2 I believe the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which I no longer resided. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of my current residence, despite having months to establish a valid address. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.  

3.2.1 If there is “reason to believe” under CPR 6.9 (3) that the address is not good for service, claimants who do not then take reasonable steps to trace any new address prior to litigation risk invalid service and expiry of the claim form under CPR 7.5. This is what has happened in this case and it's also why the Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance Judge in the landmark binding 'parking CCJ' case of VCS v Carr and they didn't just set aside the CCJ, they agreed DJ Iyer was correct on a CPR point, to strike the claim out.

3.3 Under CPR 7.5 (1) Where the claim form is served within the jurisdiction, the claimant must complete the step required by Rule 7.2 (1) before 12:00 midnight on the calendar day four months after the date of issue of the claim form.

This time has now passed, thus the claim form has expired and is no longer valid.

4. RELIEF SOUGHT

4.1 The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

• Set aside the default judgment dated xxxxx 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 

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 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: xxxxxx

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/

• BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice - https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

Coupon-mad

I'd change this to:

Strike out the claim as it has expired unserved and the court has no power to resurrect it.

Otherman

Sorry- which bit should I chop out for the above phrase?