Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

Coupon-mad

Even though I suggest two?

gizzy6791

Hi @Coupon-mad Sorry, I think I may be missing them. I am looking in the following section in the NEWBIES thread:

"HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT A CCJ (JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT) AND NEED IT SET ASIDE?

PAYING IT DOES NOT WIPE THE CCJ UNLESS JUDGMENT WAS LESS THEN 30 DAYS BEFORE. DO NOT PAY UNLESS YOU ARE SURE YOU'RE WITHIN 30 DAYS."

Am I looking in the wrong place? 

Thanks!

gizzy6791

@Coupon-mad I'm really out of my depth here...

I've now taken the @Brokenchief WS and DO and tweaked to suit, changed the numbering to be simpler, and added additional case law, including the Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD.

Or am I meant to be simply copy/pasting in its entirety? 

Hopefully I'm moving in the right direction and appreciate all your input. 

This is where I am at now:

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, [FULL NAME] of [CURRENT ADDRESS] and I am the defendant in this matter. This is my supporting statement to my application dated [DATE] requesting to:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated [DATE] as it was not properly served at my current address.

b. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant [CURRENT N244 FEE] as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on [DATE]. I am aware that the Claimant is [CLAIMANT], and that the assumed claim is in respect of unpaid Parking Charge Notices from [PCN DATE].

3. The claim form was not served at my current address and thus I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL').

4. The address on the claim is [OLD ADDRESS]. I moved to my current address at [NEW ADDRESS] on [DATE]. In support of this, I can provide [EVIDENCE] showing my updated address if required.

5. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that the integrity and law-abiding intention of the Defendant should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

6.  I have not received any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware as per paragraph 3 above. 

7. On [DATE], I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment.

8. On [DATE] I have willingly submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.

9. 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.  

10. Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ must be set aside.

11. 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. 

12. The Defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it. 

13. According to publicly available information, my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses of results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

14. There is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. Of note:  

15. Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (Jun 11, 2025)

In Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal, finding that service at the wrong address was ineffective despite receipt of tenancy details, and consequently set aside the County Court’s order for repayment of VCS’s costs.

16. In Collier v Williams [2006] 1 WLR 1945 (CA) LJ Dyson said - "What state of mind in the server is connoted by the words "last known"? … As we have said, there is an important distinction between belief and knowledge. It is a distinction particularly well understood in the criminal law, but elsewhere too. The draftsman of the rules deliberately chose the word "known". In our view, knowledge in this context refers to the serving party's actual knowledge or what might be called his constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence. We arrive at this conclusion on the basis of what we understand the words to mean. We do not believe that there are any policy reasons which require us to give the words a strained or unusual meaning. The risk of satellite litigation is inherent in whatever interpretation is adopted. It is true that a defendant who has not in fact received the claim form should have no difficulty in setting aside a default judgment. But it is not desirable that defendants should be put to the trouble and expense of making applications to set aside default judgments."  

17. The same sentiment was echoed by:   

  

18. HHJ Behrens in Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012)  

  

In Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch) (20 February 2012) it would appear that obtaining the information from a source that an individual is required by law to keep updated is adequate knowledge. However, i would submit that it is incumbent to have recent knowledge and not outdated knowledge as HHJ Hacon put it in MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC) (28 February 2014)   

19. As it was put in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71 (09 February 2016) by LJ McCombe  

  

“If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgment. He is simply not in default at all."  

20. Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses."

The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.” Furtherance to points raised in 3 above.

21. Considering the above, I was unable to defend this claim and therefore believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of [CURRENT N244 FEE] from the Claimant should this request be successful.

Statement of Truth;

I, [FULL NAME], the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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:




DRAFT ORDER

CLAIM No: [1234567890]

BETWEEN: 

[CLAIMANT] 

-- and -- 

[DEFENDANT]

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated [DATE] and the annexed witness statement of dated [DATE].

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated [DATE] be set aside. 

2. The claim struck out due to the claim form having not been served to the correct address.

3. The Claimant to pay the Defendants costs of this application of [CURRENT N244 FEE] on an indemnity basis.

Coupon-mad

But when you mentioned Zbubuman I went and looked at the NEWBIES thread which I knew also mentions icy_fox (and it does) which is the one I was really expecting you to look at.

Did you miss that? Every case you are mentioning is older!

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

But when you mentioned Zbubuman I went and looked at the NEWBIES thread which I knew also mentions icy_fox (and it does) which is the one I was really expecting you to look at.

Did you miss that? Every case you are mentioning is older!

I did miss that, don't know how! 

Thanks @Coupon-mad I'll rework from that!

gizzy6791

@Coupon-mad I'm hoping this is somewhat better? A more succinct version with snippets from both that suit my particular case.

Would more case law be beneficial or would using VCS v CARR be enough?

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, [MY NAME] of [MY ADDRESS], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

1. I make this Witness Statement in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case (Claim No. [CLAIM-REF] Judgment dated [DATE]) be set aside.

2. The claim form was not served at my current address and thus I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') on [DATE].

4. The address on the claim is [OLD ADDRESS]. I moved to my current address at [NEW ADDRESS] on [DATE]. In support of this, I can provide [LIST EVIDENCE] showing my updated address if required.

5. 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.  

6. Under CPR 13.2 The court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ must be set aside.

7. 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. 

8. The Defendant was 'there to be found' for the sake of a 29 pence bulk Experian trace or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check. I would then have been notified of this judgment and could have taken action to prevent it. 

9. I believe that I have a strong defence to the claim, and should it not be dismissed at the set aside hearing, I should (at the very least) have the opportunity to defend it properly. My application relies upon the 'mandatory set aside' rule in CPR 13.2 (in the alternative, 13.3) in light of the above facts.

10. I have set out the grounds for my application in the attached draft order.

VCS v CARR

11. I respectfully request that the judge reviews the largely similar case Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (Jun 11, 2025) Reference: CA-2024-001179.

(i) The Court of Appeal's initial preliminary finding is that in cases where the Defendant did not see the claim and had no opportunity to defend. Furthermore, the defendant is also a resident in this instance, with good prospects of successful defence.

[CLAIM-REF]

  a. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE [REG] AT [ADDRESS]. 

  b. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON [DATE]

  c. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON: VEHICLE REMAINED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

  d. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.03 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

12. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') om [DATE]. After immediately seeking guidance, today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

13. Considering all of the above, I was unable to defend myself against this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim and allows 14 days for me to submit my defence.  

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement 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:

Case Reference(s) - 

Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [CAN'T POST LINKS YET BUT THIS LINKS TO CASEMINE]

DRAFT ORDER

Claim No: [1234567890]

BETWEEN: 

[CLAIMANT] 

-- and -- 

[DEFENDANT]

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated [DATE] and the annexed witness statement of dated [DATE].

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated [DATE] be set aside. 

2. The claim struck out due to the claim form having not been served to the correct address.

3. The Claimant to pay the Defendants costs of this application of [CURRENT N244 FEE] on an indemnity basis.

gizzy6791

Also, as I am stating this:

12. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I was not aware of the Default Judgment until I received a letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') on [DATE]. After immediately seeking guidance, today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

(I noticed and fixed the om > on typo from the original too)

Should I also mention the Troublemaker22 letter/email sent to DCB Legal / DCBL that allows them 14 days?

gizzy6791

Reading more and looking at the facts, should I also be mentioning anywhere that having managed to finally find my correct address, not only did DCBL not send the claim form to the correct address, they also failed to send the letter that I received on the 9th June telling me I owed them money and now have a CCJ in a timely fashion, which resulted in me not even being able to pay the requested amount and have the CCJ removed even if I had  wanted to?

Coupon-mad

Nope, because you aren't offering to pay it so don't muddy the waters.

You want the claim struck out for want of service within 4 months and that should be in your Draft Order too (pretty sure it was in icy_fox's case and they had case law to support that. Theirs was a better WS.

VCS v Carr also supports the fact that the claim went unserved, so must be struck out.

The claim would have been FILED in February - do you know the date of issue (I don't mean the CCJ date)?

This is referribg to the 2024 initial lfunubd in Carr. We now have the final 2025 jusgment, not an initial finding:

11. I respectfully request that the judge reviews the largely similar case Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (Jun 11, 2025) Reference: CA-2024-001179.

(i) The Court of Appeal's initial preliminary finding is that in cases where the Defendant did not see the claim and had no opportunity to defend. Furthermore, the defendant is also a resident in this instance, with good prospects of successful defence.

Remove the above and remove this. Your WS isn't there to repeat their case!

[CLAIM-REF]

  a. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE [REG] AT [ADDRESS]. 

  b. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON [DATE]

  c. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON: VEHICLE REMAINED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

  d. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.03 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

gizzy6791

Thank you so much for your help @Coupon-mad ! I will get it updated later and will try to improve!

As for the dates, just double checked the response from CNBC: "Please note the case was issued on the 21st of March 2025..."