Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

I'd change:

"The Judges Order states nothing as to costs."

to

The court is aware that I paid a £313 fee (receipt attached) for the process of the CCJ to be set aside and the Claimant had ample opportunity to discontinue throughout. They did not, and now they have discontinued at the eleventh hour. The judge may already have noticed the pattern that the most common outcome of defended (DCBLegal-filed) parking cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)).

There are still costs in the case because the Order was silent about them. Further,  at the point where my costs were incurred (and at the CCJ set aside hearing) the case was not allocated to track, therefore there is no requirement for me to set out the Claimant's course of unreasonable conduct. The the Claimant discontinued and did not comply with the recent Unless Order. My costs must now be awarded, to conclude the matter.

The recent Notification of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) letter states: 

blah blah...

Sounds much better than mine  Thank you @Coupon-mad

Gr1pr

Pedant mode, and sort out the few typos first   !  Lol  ( or use a spelling checker. )

Don't forget to attach a copy of the costs assessment,  preferably a copy of one previously sent to the court 

gizzy6791

So, after emailing the court requesting my £313 fee back and providing payment proof, I have received the following letter.

Isn’t that what I did by emailing the court? Is there a more formal way I am expected to do it?

I assume DCB Legal will not want to turn up at court?

@Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

They won't attend.

To show 'wholly unreasonable conduct' which is your burden to convince the judge about, as well as a signed & dated sheet headed 'Costs Assessment' I would also attach a second Witness Statement.

First, politely repeat what you said in your email: your £313 fee for the application was incurred when the case was not allocated to the small claims track, so there was no requirement at that point for the innocent party to set out the Claimant's course of unreasonable conduct. Also at the point of the first hearing, the case was still not allocated to track, therefore attendance & travel costs for this and the costs hearing are in the case and are listed on the attached Costs Assessment, along with Postage & printing costs, if any?

Attach receipts including the receipt for the £313 fee you paid because this sounds like a grumpy judge who had hoped you'd walk away happy just to get the CCJ set aside and didn't want to be bothered with your costs!

You've got to attend this hearing and convince him/her to grant them.

(There are two examples already linked in the NEWBIES thread about how to formally ask for costs for unreasonable conduct. Read those two and copy the legal arguments made).

Then continue and politely thank the named judge for their Order and costs hearing and state that you acknowledge that the Order requires you to demonstrate a course of unreasonable conduct in any event, so a chronology and case law is as below.

Do a chronology of what they did wrong when. Show us!

Also cite:

Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which is a key UK Court of Appeal case clarifying that "unreasonable behaviour" (allowing for cost orders on the Small Claims Track under CPR 27.14(2)(g)) requires conduct that lacks a reasonable explanation.

Your job is to show that lots (everything?) that they did in the course of litigation 'permits of no reasonable explanation'. Use that phrase.

Start with the fact the Claimant breached the CPRs and the industry Code of Practice, too, by failing to show evidence of the mandatory soft address trace (quote the correct Code for the parking firm).

Also cite the new case law of Mazur v Speechlys re the non-solicitor who signed your claim form that you never got: Sarah Ensall (search the forum.. she did!).

And cite VCS v Carr which was a Court of Appeal binding CCJ set aside case in 2025 where the claim was sent by a parking firm to an old address. This happened here too, and in Carr, his costs were awarded in full.

And quote the White Book (copy the final paragraph from the Template Defence). Given the most common outcome of defended (DCBLegal-filed) parking cases is ALWAYS late discontinuance, this pattern is the business model not a case by case decision by Claimants. This conduct by their bulk litigator must make the Claimant liable for costs (r.38.6(1)).

gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81864090#Comment_81864090

@Coupon-mad

I'd already made a start and edited to add your suggestions, this is where I've got to:

EMAIL TO SEND WITH THE ATTACHMENTS

Dear Sir / Madam,

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge.

In the matter of

Parkingeye Ltd(Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX(Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

Following the order of the court dated [DATE] regarding the set-aside of judgment in the above matter, I write to file details of the costs I am claiming on the basis of the claimant’s allegedly unreasonable behaviour.

Please find attached a Costs Assessment detailing the amount claimed, Proof of payment of N244 Application Fee, a copy of my Witness Statement and a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance. 

I respectfully request the court to consider this claim at the hearing listed.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX(Defendant)

—---------------------------------------------------------------

In the County Court at XXXXXX

Parkingeye Ltd(Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX(Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

COSTS ASSESSMENT

1. I respectfully request an order for costs following the Claimant’s late Notice of Discontinuance. The Claimant served a Notice of Discontinuance on 20/01/2026, just 2 days before they were due to submit their application.

2. The Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable.

I submit that the Claimant’s behaviour meets the threshold of unreasonable conduct, given that its course of litigation “permits of no reasonable explanation”, for the following reasons:

2.1: Last-minute discontinuance.

The Claimant waited until the last possible moment before discontinuing the claim.
This resulted in significant wasted time and effort in preparing:

• A full defence
• A comprehensive witness statement
• An evidence bundle
• Legal research including relevant authorities (e.g:  Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr, CEL v Chan, CPMS v Akande)

2.2: The Claimant breached the CPRs and the industry Code of Practice, too, by failing to show evidence of the mandatory soft address trace. BPA Code of Practice v8 (January 2020), paragraph 23.1c.

2.3: Defective Service / Lack of Jurisdiction.

The claim was defective because: (i) the claim form was not validly served; (ii) the claim was not served within the CPR 7.5 period.

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.

In VCS v Carr which was a Court of Appeal binding CCJ set aside case in 2025 (EWCA Civ 713) where the claim was sent by a parking firm to an old address. This happened here too, and in Carr, his costs were awarded in full.

2.4:  Defective Particulars of Claim.

The Particulars of Claim were sparse and failed to disclose any coherent cause of action, mirroring the failures criticised in CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande. As a result, I expended considerable time attempting to understand and address a claim that was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

2.5: Unnecessary prolonging of litigation.

The Claimant’s conduct has caused wholly avoidable work, stress, and inconvenience.
A discontinuance at the earliest stage would have avoided this; instead, they strung out the matter for as long as possible.

For these reasons, I submit that this behaviour falls squarely within the meaning of “unreasonable conduct” under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

2.6: The Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) 

The Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) defines “the conduct of litigation” as a reserved legal activity. This includes the issuing of proceedings, the prosecution or defence of such proceedings, and ancillary functions such as entering appearances. Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity unless entitled to do so.

In a recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP EWHC 2341 (KB). Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgement was that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation.

The legal assistant, Sarah Ensall, who, until recently signed all claim forms, is not an authorised litigator by Solicitor Regulation Authority search of the Solicitors Register, and has admitted their conduct of the litigation, in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is further detailed below in the following legal blogs:

[Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys Litigation Supervision] https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

2.7: Unreasonable Behaviour.

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))'.

Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which is a key UK Court of Appeal case clarifying that "unreasonable behaviour" (allowing for cost orders on the Small Claims Track under CPR 27.14(2)(g)) requires conduct that lacks a reasonable explanation.

3. Costs Sought.

£313 set-aside application fee, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I believe this amount is entirely reasonable, as 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, and the Defendant is not claiming for loss of earnings for attending the set-aside hearing, or any other associated costs.

4. Request for Order Without Hearing.

As the Claimant has discontinued, and at the time of the scheduled hearing, the Defendant will be more than 8 months pregnant.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court deals with this matter on the papers, under:

• CPR 27.10 – disposal without a hearing
• The Court’s inherent case management powers

I submit that the Claimant should bear the costs incurred as a result of their unreasonable behaviour.

5. Conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, I respectfully invite the Court to make an order that:

“The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £313.00, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) within 14 days.”

I trust the Court will give this matter due consideration.

Yours faithfully,
XXXXXXX (Defendant)

Signed:

Dated:

gizzy6791

@Coupon-mad I've made quite a lot of edits & additions to the above and think it may be ready to send, but would like your opinion before I do. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

No, the Costs Assessment is a separate signed sheet of costs. With receipts.

Are you not also claiming at least the CPR cap of £95 a day for 'loss of leave' for attending two hearings while pregnant? Even if you are on maternity leave, you are allowed to claim loss of a day's leave for hearings.

Separately, you'll need to head up a:

WITNESS STATEMENT: IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS

You don't even have one drafted yet. There's no statement of truth at the end of your draft; you've put 'yours faithfully'. Nonono.

You must do this correctly!

You need to provide a link to this in your WS: BPA Code of Practice v8 (January 2020), paragraph 23.1c.

And attach the court transcripts for Chan and Akande which @Le_Kirk has provided the links to, in his judgments thread.

THIS IS WORTH £313 TO YOU. SPEND TIME ON IT. YOU REALLY HAVE TO TRY HARD TO PERSUADE THIS JUDGE WHO SOUNDS IRKED. DO ATTEND.

Your costs aren't a "claim", so change this:

I respectfully request the court to consider this claim at the hearing listed.

to

I respectfully request the court to consider my costs at the hearing listed, which I will attend - if I am absolutely required to - but kindly note I will be almost 9 months pregnant on that date and may need to excuse my attendance on medical advice.

gizzy6791

Thank you @Coupon-mad

So, use what I have as my WS with the required changes and create a separate Costs Assessment?

I’m honestly not bothered about claiming any further costs, the main aim was getting the CCJ set-aside and getting my £313 back.

They have used the hearing that was already listed which is in 2 weeks so I need to get this submitted a.s.a.p I assume to get the Judge to see it.

gizzy6791

EMAIL TO SEND TO COURT WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge.

In the matter of

Parkingeye Ltd (Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

Following the order of the court dated [DATE] regarding the set-aside of judgment in the above matter, I write to file details of the costs I am claiming on the basis of the claimant’s allegedly unreasonable behaviour.

Please find attached a Costs Assessment detailing the amount claimed, Proof of payment of N244 Application Fee, Witness Statement and a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance. 

I respectfully request the court to consider my costs at the hearing listed, which I will attend - if I am absolutely required to - but kindly note I will be almost 9 months pregnant on that date and may need to excuse my attendance on medical advice.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT:

In the County Court at XXXXXX

Parkingeye Ltd (Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

WITNESS STATEMENT: IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS

1. I respectfully request an order for costs following the Claimant’s late Notice of Discontinuance. The Claimant served a Notice of Discontinuance on 20/01/2026, just 2 days before they were due to submit their application.

2. The Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable.

I submit that the Claimant’s behaviour meets the threshold of unreasonable conduct, given that its course of litigation “permits of no reasonable explanation”, for the following reasons:

2.1: Last-minute discontinuance.

The Claimant waited until the last possible moment before discontinuing the claim.
This resulted in significant wasted time and effort in preparing:

• A full defence
• A comprehensive witness statement
• An evidence bundle
• Legal research including relevant authorities (e.g:  Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr, CEL v Chan, CPMS v Akande)

2.2: The Claimant breached the CPRs and the industry Code of Practice, too, by failing to show evidence of the mandatory soft address trace. BPA Code of Practice v8 (January 2020), paragraph 23.1c. https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8%282%29.pdf

2.3: Defective Service / Lack of Jurisdiction.

The claim was defective because: (i) the claim form was not validly served; (ii) the claim was not served within the CPR 7.5 period.

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.

In VCS v Carr which was a Court of Appeal binding CCJ set aside case in 2025 (EWCA Civ 713) where the claim was sent by a parking firm to an old address. This happened here too, and in Carr, his costs were awarded in full. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713

2.4:  Defective Particulars of Claim.

The Particulars of Claim were sparse and failed to disclose any coherent cause of action, mirroring the failures criticised in CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande. As a result, I expended considerable time attempting to understand and address a claim that was fundamentally flawed from the outset. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0

2.5: Unnecessary prolonging of litigation.

The Claimant’s conduct has caused wholly avoidable work, stress, and inconvenience.
A discontinuance at the earliest stage would have avoided this; instead, they strung out the matter for as long as possible.

For these reasons, I submit that this behaviour falls squarely within the meaning of “unreasonable conduct” under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

2.6: The Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) 

The Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) defines “the conduct of litigation” as a reserved legal activity. This includes the issuing of proceedings, the prosecution or defence of such proceedings, and ancillary functions such as entering appearances. Section 14 makes it a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity unless entitled to do so.

In a recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP EWHC 2341 (KB). Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgement was that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation.

The legal assistant, Sarah Ensall, who, until recently signed all claim forms, is not an authorised litigator by Solicitor Regulation Authority search of the Solicitors Register, and has admitted their conduct of the litigation, in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is further detailed below in the following legal blogs:

[Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys Litigation Supervision] https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

2.7: Unreasonable Behaviour.

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))'.

Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which is a key UK Court of Appeal case clarifying that "unreasonable behaviour" (allowing for cost orders on the Small Claims Track under CPR 27.14(2)(g)) requires conduct that lacks a reasonable explanation.

3. Costs Sought.

£313 set-aside application fee, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I believe this amount is entirely reasonable, as 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, and the Defendant is not claiming for loss of earnings for attending the set-aside hearing, or any other associated costs.

4. Request for Order Without Hearing.

As the Claimant has discontinued, and at the time of the scheduled hearing, the Defendant will be almost 9 months pregnant.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Court deals with this matter on the papers, under:

• CPR 27.10 – disposal without a hearing
• The Court’s inherent case management powers

I submit that the Claimant should bear the costs incurred as a result of their unreasonable behaviour.

5. Conclusion.

For the reasons stated above, I respectfully invite the Court to make an order that:

“The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed in the sum of £313.00, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) within 14 days.”

I trust the Court will give this matter due consideration.

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:

COSTS ASSESSMENT:

In the County Court at XXXXXX

Parkingeye Ltd (Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXXX

COSTS ASSESSMENT

Summary of Costs Claimed

Item	Description	Amount (£)
1	Court fee – N244 application	313.00
	Total costs claimed	£313.00

Statement of Costs

The Defendant applies for an order that the Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of this application, summarily assessed in the sum of £313, being the court fee incurred for issuing the N244 application.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts stated within this Costs Assessment 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:

Coupon-mad

You cannot provide a Dropbox link to Chan and Akande. The Judge will not click on that. They must both be attached as actual PDF transcript exhibits 1 and 2, and referred to by exhibit number.

Your WS is a signed & dated attached PDF, and so are Chan & Akande. So is your Costs Assessment but that's just a sheet and a screenshot of the £313 receipt. That's not an exhibit.

Name the judge and his/her date of Order, in this heading:

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge.

And this (below) must be wrong because they were not due to serve 'an application'. What were they due to do? Pay a hearing fee?

The Claimant served a Notice of Discontinuance on 20/01/2026, just 2 days before they were due to submit their application.

Finally, your email subject line must contain the claim number and date / time of hearing. Double check the claim no before sending it to the local court and cc in DCB Legal (you have to).

P.S. I may have missed it, but I didn't see where you firstly pointed out that the £313 fee was incurred when the case was not allocated to the small claims track, so - as was the case in VCS v Carr (link to the Court of Appeal hearing on Youtube, and also to the final transcript PDF) - costs were not limited to any track and remain in the case for the successful party.