We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.
Comments
-
@Coupon-madgizzy6791 said:@Coupon-mad So I had my hearing, didn't go exactly to plan.
The Judge agreed to the set aside, but then said the claim would revert to it's original status and I will need to defend at trial.
But the claim has expired?
Also, aren't local courts supposed to follow a binding authority (vcs v carr)?
It actually seems like the Judge didn't really read the WS and just made up their own rules. They also asked where I got all of the information in my WS...
Not sure how to proceed from here and any help will be much appreciated!
Using the template defence, this is what I have so far. Thoughts?1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.
3. The Defendant maintains they did not receive the original claim form, which was sent to an incorrect address. The claim form was served at [insert address served to], which was not the Defendant’s residence at that time.
3.1. The Defendant had no knowledge of the proceedings until after the entry of Default Judgment on [date of CCJ], which has since been set aside by order of the Court dated [date of set-aside order].
3.2. Under CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served within four months of the date of issue when service is within the jurisdiction. The Claimant failed to validly serve the claim form within that period, and no application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made prior to expiry.
3.3. Consequently, the claim form has expired, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction to take further steps in these proceedings. This principle comes straight from the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11th June 2025). In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the Court of Appeal confirmed that:
"A claim form that has not been validly served within the period permitted by CPR 7.5 cannot be retrospectively validated; once that period has expired, the proceedings are a nullity".
3.4. The Defendant respectfully requests that, if the claim is struck out or dismissed, the Court orders the Claimant to reimburse the Defendant’s £313 set-aside application fee, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This fee was reasonably and necessarily incurred because the claim form was not properly served, resulting in a default judgment that had to be set aside through no fault of the Defendant.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.
10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.
0 -
0
-
Yes it doesgizzy6791 said:2 -
Presumably because it is not being submitted via MCOL but by email to your designated court.ChirpyChicken said:
Yes it doesgizzy6791 said:2 -
Thank you!ChirpyChicken said:
Yes it doesgizzy6791 said:1 -
Added the statement of truth. Does this look OK for defence or have I missed anything? Thanks in advance!
1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.
3. The Defendant maintains they did not receive the original claim form, which was sent to an incorrect address. The claim form was served at [insert address served to], which was not the Defendant’s residence at that time.
3.1. The Defendant had no knowledge of the proceedings until after the entry of Default Judgment on [date of CCJ], which has since been set aside by order of the Court dated [date of set-aside order].
3.2. Under CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served within four months of the date of issue when service is within the jurisdiction. The Claimant failed to validly serve the claim form within that period, and no application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made prior to expiry.
3.3. Consequently, the claim form has expired, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction to take further steps in these proceedings. This principle comes straight from the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11th June 2025). In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the Court of Appeal confirmed that:
"A claim form that has not been validly served within the period permitted by CPR 7.5 cannot be retrospectively validated; once that period has expired, the proceedings are a nullity”.
3.4. The Defendant respectfully requests that, if the claim is struck out or dismissed, the Court orders the Claimant to reimburse the Defendant’s £313 set-aside application fee, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This fee was reasonably and necessarily incurred because the claim form was not properly served, resulting in a default judgment that had to be set aside through no fault of the Defendant.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.
10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts stated within this Defence to be 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:
Dated: [insert date]
0 -
Your query states, Defence, but your Statement of Truth says WS, so one is wrong
Ps, coupon mad is on holiday2 -
Good catch @Gr1pr, thanks! Does everything else look ok?Gr1pr said:Your query states, Defence, but your Statement of Truth says WS, so one is wrong
Ps, coupon mad is on holiday
Thanks for the heads-up re @Coupon-mad
0 -
Instead of keep posting the whole defence, I'm just going to post the actual para's I've added/edited to suit my case.
Just made further edits:3. The Defendant maintains they did not receive the original claim form, which was sent to an incorrect address. The claim form was served at [insert address served to], which was not the Defendant’s residence at that time.
3.1. Due to the alleged offence being nearly 18 months ago, and the Claimant's POC failing to state the exact time and date of the alleged offence, the Defendant cannot, with any certainty, recollect if they were the driver of the vehicle at that time.
3.2. The Defendant had no knowledge of the proceedings until after the entry of Default Judgment on [date of CCJ], which has since been set aside by order of the Court dated [date of set-aside order].
3.3. Under CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served within four months of the date of issue when service is within the jurisdiction. The Claimant failed to validly serve the claim form within that period, and no application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made prior to expiry.
3.4. Consequently, the claim form has expired, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction to take further steps in these proceedings. This principle comes straight from the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11th June 2025). In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the Court of Appeal confirmed that:
"A claim form that has not been validly served within the period permitted by CPR 7.5 cannot be retrospectively validated; once that period has expired, the proceedings are a nullity”.
3.5. The Defendant respectfully requests that, if the claim is struck out or dismissed, the Court orders the Claimant to reimburse the Defendant’s £313 set-aside application fee, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This fee was reasonably and necessarily incurred because the claim form was not properly served, resulting in a default judgment that had to be set aside through no fault of the Defendant.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards