Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

ChirpyChicken

look here , it will give you the relevant email address
https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/
Just get your defence logged and emailed over 

gizzy6791

ChirpyChicken said:

look here , it will give you the relevant email address
https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/
Just get your defence logged and emailed over 

Thank you very much @ChirpyChicken.

It lists different emails for different things. Family enquiries, Civil enquiries and Breathing Space enquiries. I assume I use Civil enquiries?

Just to be sure, I add my name and claim number in the subject and CC DCB Legal?

Also, does my defence look ok to you?

Thanks in advance!

ChirpyChicken

Its civil and yes you include all that, 

gizzy6791

ChirpyChicken said:

Its civil and yes you include all that, 

Thank you!

gizzy6791

Going to submit my Defence via email today as the deadline of 14 days is Thursday.

I'd be grateful if anyone could have a quick glance over just to ensure it looks OK before I send. Thanks in advance!

DEFENCE

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 [ADDRESS] on [DATE], which was not the Defendant’s residence at that time. The defendant moved to their current address at [ADDRESS] on [DATE].

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], which has since been set aside by order of the Court at a hearing on [DATE].

3.3. Under CPR 7.5(1), where service is to take place within the jurisdiction, the Claimant was required to serve the claim form within four months of the date of issue. The Claimant failed to validly effect service within that period because the claim form was sent to an address where the Defendant did not reside. No application for an extension of time under CPR 7.6 was made before the expiry of the four-month period.

3.4. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a claim form which has not been validly served within the CPR 7.5 period cannot be retrospectively validated; the proceedings automatically expire and the Court has no jurisdiction to continue them.

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.

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. Based 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: [DATE]

gizzy6791

Also adding a skeleton argument:

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT

1. Introduction

1.1. The Defendant relies on the Defence filed in these proceedings and seeks dismissal or strike-out of the Claimant’s claim.

1.2. The primary grounds for this Skeleton Argument are:

• Defective service of the claim form;
  
  

• Lack of jurisdiction due to expired CPR 7.5 period;
  
  

• Unclear and unenforceable contractual terms;
  
  

• Recovery of sums exceeding statutory limits under POFA and the Parking Code of Practice;
  
  

• Disproportionate and unreasonable charges imposed by the Claimant.
  
  

2. Defective Service and Lack of Jurisdiction

2.1. The claim form was served at [ADDRESS], an address where the Defendant did not reside at the time (Defendant moved to [ADDRESS] on [DATE]).

2.2. Under CPR 7.5(1), service of a claim form must occur within four months of issue when service is within the jurisdiction. No application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made prior to expiry.

2.3. The binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 held:

“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.”

2.4. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed, and the Claimant’s claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).

2.5. In the event of strike-out, the Defendant requests an order for reimbursement of the £313 set-aside application fee pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

3. Denial of Liability

3.1. The Defendant maintains they may not have been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach (nearly 18 months ago) and therefore cannot admit liability with certainty.

3.2. The Claimant has failed to specify the exact date and time of the alleged parking incident.

3.3. Liability is denied for the sum claimed or at all. Interest should also be disallowed, as any delay in proceedings is entirely attributable to the Claimant.

4. Contractual Issues and Consumer Protection

4.1. The Defendant contends that a contract requires offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration, which is absent here.

4.2. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) and Sch2 examples 6, 10, 14 & 18, the Court must consider the fairness and prominence of terms and consumer notices. The Claimant’s signage and notices are unclear and potentially unfair.

4.3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

• The contract terms;
  
  

• Landowner authority;
  
  

• Dates of operation;
  
  

• Photographic evidence of signage and obligations.
  
  

5. POFA and Parking Code Limits

5.1. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum amount recoverable from a keeper.

5.2. Late fees or DRA charges are not “unpaid parking-related charges” and are therefore unrecoverable.

6. Disproportionate and Unreasonable Charges

6.1. The Claimant’s claimed “administrative costs” are excessive and penal in nature, as per:

• ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, paras 98, 100, 193, 198;
  
  

• ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), paras 419–428.
  
  

6.2. The Court should have regard to the systemic abuse of bulk parking litigation and award costs to the Defendant if the Claimant has acted unreasonably (CPR 27.14).

7. Conclusion

7.1. The Defendant respectfully submits that:

• The claim is invalid due to defective service and lack of jurisdiction;
  
  

• Liability is denied in full;
  
  

• The sums claimed are excessive, unlawful, and disproportionate;
  
  

• Costs should be awarded to the Defendant under CPR 27.14, including the set-aside fee.
  
  

7.2. The Court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim.

Signed:

Dated: [Insert Date]

gizzy6791

@Gr1pr@Le_Kirk@ChirpyChicken Any chance you could glance over my Defence and Skeleton above for any issues so I can get them emailed before my deadline? Thank you!

Le_Kirk

I would say straight away that skeletons are not supposed to be longer than the defence; is the skeleton there to focus the judge's mind on the salient points or to help you at the hearing?

gizzy6791

Le_Kirk said:

I would say straight away that skeletons are not supposed to be longer than the defence; is the skeleton there to focus the judge's mind on the salient points or to help you at the hearing?

Thanks @Le_Kirk. It's for the Judge. I'll shorten down to the most important points and repost shortly. Hoping to get it all emailed off today.

gizzy6791

@Le_Kirk Is this any better?

I'm mainly trying get the point across regarding VCS v Carr as the first Judge basically ignored that from my Witness Statement and pushed the whole thing back to defence rather than striking it out on that basis.

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT

1. Introduction
   1.1. The Defendant relies on the Defence and seeks dismissal/strike-out of the claim.
   
   1.2. The claim is defective because: (i) the claim form was not validly served; (ii) the claim was not served within the CPR 7.5 period. 

2. Defective Service / Lack of Jurisdiction
   2.1. The claim form was served at [ADDRESS] on [DATE], an address where the Defendant did not reside at the time (Defendant moved to [ADDRESS] on [DATE]).
   
   2.2. Under CPR 7.5(1), service of a claim form must occur within four months of issue when service is within the jurisdiction. No application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made prior to expiry.
   
   2.3. The binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 held: “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.”
   
   2.4. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed, and the Claimant’s claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
   
   

3. Liability Denied
   3.1. The Defendant cannot confirm who was driving over 18 months ago.
   
   3.2. The Claimant has not clearly stated the date/time of the alleged breach.
   
   3.3. No liability is admitted and interest should not be awarded, as any delay is the Claimant’s fault.
   
   

4. Conclusion
   4.1. The claim is invalid due to defective service and lack of jurisdiction.

4.2. Liability is denied in full.

4.3. If struck out, the Defendant seeks reimbursement of the £313 set-aside fee (CPR 27.14(2)(g)).

Signed:

Dated: