Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865709#Comment_81865709

I cannot thank you enough for all of your help @Coupon-mad

I'll just add the parts I have changed below and if this all looks good I'll get it sent.

SUBJECT: Costs Assessment. Claim No: XXXXX. Hearing [TIME/DATE] at the [COURT]

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge [NAME]. Order [DATE]

Please find attached a Costs Assessment detailing the amount claimed, Witness Statement, a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance and Exhibits 1 & 2. 

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 pay the court trial fee.

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 (Exhibit 1)  and CPMS v Akande (Exhibit 2). As a result, I expended considerable time attempting to understand and address a claim that was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

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, thus the case was not allocated to the small claims track initially, resulting in a default judgment that had to be set aside through no fault of the Defendant, so - as was the case in VCS v Carr ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713 ) - costs were not limited to any track and remain in the case for the successful party. The Defendant is also not claiming for loss of earnings for attending the set-aside hearing, or any other associated costs.

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 £313.00, being the court fee incurred for issuing the N244 application.

[INSERT SCREENSHOT OF RECEIPT]

gizzy6791

@Coupon-mad Does the above look OK to send? Should it be Procedural Judge or District Judge? The Order states District Judge [NAME]

Coupon-mad

It must be sent by name to named judge on the 'grumpy' (grudging…"oh no. How tiresome. Alright send the court your costs as I stupidly missed telling you that you couldn't have them and now you've got me!") order, as I already advised!

But I don't understand what you've shown us though. You don't put much in the body of the email itself and certainly not the receipt screenshot there. That's meant to be in your Costs Assessment signed page as an attachment.

Coupon-mad

And if you find you can't attend the hearing (REALLY FORCE YOURSELF AND GET THERE HALF AN HOUR EARLY TO GET THROUGH SECURITY, SIGN IN WITH THE USHER AND HAVE A LOO BREAK!) don't just not turn up!

You MUST attend (or excuse yourself formally, if ill). £313 depends in this, so go.

gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867000#Comment_81867000

Thanks @Coupon-mad

Yes the receipt screenshot is inside the Costs Assessment PDF, I was just showing the various areas that I had amended.

So I will change this:

Urgent Matter - to be referred to Procedural Judge [NAME]. Order [DATE]

to

Urgent Matter - to be referred to District Judge [NAME]. Order [DATE]

The actual email is:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Urgent Matter - to be referred to District Judge NAME. Order 28th January 2026

In the matter of

Parkingeye Ltd (Claimant)

-v- 

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Claim Number: XXXXXX

Following the order of the court dated 28th January 2026 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, Witness Statement, a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance and Exhibits 1 & 2. 

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 grounds.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX (Defendant)

Coupon-mad

Very good but remove 'allegedly' because it is your absolute position that there WAS a course of conduct throughout this litigation (start to finish) which 'does not permit of a reasonable explanation'.

Remember at the hearing to use that phrase (from the unreasonable costs leading case law: Dammerman).

gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867115#Comment_81867115

All sent, will update this thread in due course. Thanks again @Coupon-mad

gizzy6791

WS from DCB Legal

I, Shazia Aslam, of DCB Legal Limited, Direct House, Greenwood Dr, Runcorn, WA7 1UG, make this Statement and will say as follows: -

1. I am a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales employed by the firm of DCB Legal Limited at the above address and I have supervision of this case.

2. I am duly authorised to make this Statement on the Claimant’s behalf. Insofar as the contents of this witness statement are within my personal knowledge, they are true, and insofar as they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Preliminary Issues

3. The Defendant has requested costs of £313.00, however; the Defendant has no cause of action against the Claimant to recover the sums sought. The Defendant’s entitlement to the relief claimed is denied in its entirety.

4. It is noted the Defendant alleges they are entitled to costs due to the Claimant’s ‘late discontinuance’ of the Claim. Respectfully, the Claimant exercised their right to discontinue the Claim pursuant to CPR 39.6(1). The decision to discontinue does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing or fault. The Discontinuance occurred as a commercial decision. The Claimant maintains that their Conduct has been reasonable throughout.

5. The Defendant is not entitled to any form of compensation simply because the Claim was discontinued. Discontinuance does not confer an automatic right to damaged or costs in the absence of a formal costs order. There is no evidence that the Defendant has suffered loss or damage arising form the Claimant’s conduct that would justify a compensatory award.

6. It is noted the Defendant alleges there are costs in the case as the Order dated 29 October 2025 was ‘silent about them’. However the Order does not refer to costs. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to Small Claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the Defendant is put to strict proof that the costs claimed are true.

7. It is noted the Defendant alleges the Claimant has acted unreasonably. Whilst CPR 27.14(2)(g) allows the for the discretion of the court to summarily assess costs and order the same to be paid by a party who has behaved ‘unreasonably’. We would argue that the behaviour of the Claimant or of ourselves cannot be classified as ‘unreasonable’. We would refer the court to the case of Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 which considered what is constituted as ‘unreasonable’. The term applies to conduct which is vexatious, and which is designed to harass the opponent rather then take meaningful steps to resolve the case. It cannot therefore be said that costs ought to be summarily assessed given the conduct of the Claimant or their legal representatives has in no way echoed that of unreasonable behaviour.

8. It is noted the Defendant alleges the Claimant has not complied with the Order dated 5 January 2025 as the hearing fee was not paid by 22 January 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claim was discontinued on the 20 January 2026. As such, no hearing fee is required.

Conclusion

9. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to Small Claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the Defendant is put to strict proof that the costs claimed are true.

10. For all of the reasons outlined in this Witness Statement, I believe that the Defendant’s costs ought not to be awarded.

Coupon-mad

This is what I'd say at the hearing:

1. If their witness solicitor doesn't turn up, raise that absence first as 'more unreasonable conduct' because the Order requires both parties to attend. Not that a DCB Legal solicitor is a party to this case.
2. Even if they send a third party legal rep, this recent parking case (VCS v Langley) supports the view that a "solicitor's agent' is too far removed and lacks rights of audience. And the Order clearly requires the attendance of BOTH PARTIES:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html

3. Twice the solicitor says:

"Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to Small Claims."

But this wasn't a small claims track (costs restricted) hearing. The case was about setting aside a default judgment (exactly like VCS v Carr) and was not allocated to the Small Claims track at the point when the £313 fee was incurred, nor at the time of the first hearing and first Order.

As such, there were 'costs in the case' for the winning party at that set aside hearing and the Small Claims track limits simply did not apply.

4. VCS v Carr is the Court of Appeal binding authority here. Mr Carr won and his costs were awarded in full, including the £313 fee.

The cases are on all fours:

A parking firm, VCS had failed to comply with the CPRs and Industry Code of Practice by issuing a claim to an old address without doing the 'soft address trace' check first (which doesn't require a 'reason to believe' that a person has moved).

The clause is mandatory in the 2024 Joint Code in all cases prior to litigation, and it's based on the Government's statutory Code which was 'temporarily' withdrawn in 2022 and is about to be reintroduced this year by the new MHCLG (that clause isn't looking likely to be touched; it wasn't raised in the public consultation). So the failure to do a soft trace - an automated 'sweep' of cases which costs less than 30 pence, in bulk - is:

• a clear breach of the rules in the parking sector,
• is wholly unreasonable,
• does not 'permit of a reasonable explanation' and
• ignoring this clause is plainly likely to cause CCJs, abd
• failure to check an address goes against the Civil Procedure Rules, which is why the Government requires it.

The Court of Appeal Judges in VCS v Carr remarked that a DVLA address "is only a starting point" and they also said that 'not hearing' from the recipient IS in itself likely to be 'reason to believe' that letters may not have been received.

5. The WS from DCB Legal is pure hearsay but to answer:

• the Defendant doesn't need a 'cause of action' to be granted their costs arising in a case that was outside of the small claims track.
• It is notable that the DCB Legal WS fails to address the fact that they didn't bother to do a soft trace, yet found the Defendant easily when they rushed to do a trace after the CCJ! An out of the blue 'pay up, you've got a CCJ' letter from DCBL (same group as DCB Legal) traced the D and miraculously came to the right address!
• It is notable that their witness also fails to address other issues with their claim, including the High Court case law of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
• This is a significant case concerning the right to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The unserved claim made no mention of a term breached so the Particulars failed Part 16, AND the missing claim form was signed by Sarah Ensall, who is not an authorised person.
• The courts may reasonably expect the Solicitor who provided this witness statement to have checked the papers thoroughly and addressed that issue (DCB Legal certainly know about MAZUR) and she should have included a request for relief from sanctions. DCB Legal did not even mention it.
• Late discontinuance can certainly be the final nail in the coffin and be construed as part of a 'COURSE OF CONDUCT' that is unreasonable.
• When the very late discontinuance is taken together with their failure to do an address trace (but miraculously finding me weeks later) AND the fact the claim wasn't signed by a solicitor AND the witness' failure to address this or turn up for this hearing today, the course of conduct is clear & permits of no reasonable explanation.
• The court is aware that I paid a £313 fee for the process of the CCJ to be set aside (which I won back in the Autumn) and the Claimant had ample opportunity to discontinue throughout.
• They did not, and now they have discontinued at the eleventh hour.
• The court may already have noticed the pattern that the most common outcome of defended (DCBLegal-filed) parking cases is late discontinuance. It is their business model, not a commercial decision on a case by case basis. Hearing fees are never paid for this Claimant.

Conclusion:

• The defendant was successful in the Application, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)) which says:

“Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.”

• This is the usual rule and it automatically applies because the claim was not allocated to track, so small claims rules are irrelevant.
  To depart from that 'usual rule', generally, the claimant must show some form of unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant, which they have not.
•  In Brookes v HSBC Bank Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 354; [2012], the Court of Appeal provided guidance in the form of 6 key principles which should be considered for the disapplication of CPR 38.6:
• The starting presumption is that the defendant should recover its costs and the burden is on the claimant to show a good reason for departing from that presumption;
• The fact that the claimant would or might have succeeded at trial is not itself a sufficient reason for departing from the presumption;
• The fact that the claimant’s decision to discontinue may have been motivated by practical, pragmatic or financial reasons, and not a lack of confidence in the merits of the claim, is not enough to displace the presumption;
• Whilst the first four principles set down by Brookes dictate ‘what will not be considered’, the final two principles set the scene for ‘what will be considered’ to disapply the usual rule:

1. The claimant will usually need to show a change of circumstances to which it has not contributed to or caused;
2. And such change in circumstance is only likely to suffice where it has been brought about by unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant. 

• I am the innocent party. I have done nothing wrong and the Claimant has not made a case that I have. Therefore, the usual rule in CPR 38.6 has not been disapplied so I should not have to prove unreasonable conduct by the Claimants
• However, if the court is looking for me to ALSO make a case for 'wholly unreasonable conduct' as was suggested in the latest Order, then compare my conduct, promptness and good faith efforts to attend to right a wrong, to that of the Claimants and their legal reps!
• Late discontinuance of civil proceedings can certainly be viewed by the courts as a final, unreasonable act within a broader "course of conduct".
• While a claimant has a general right to discontinue at any time under CPR 38.2, doing so late in the day - particularly after a defendant has incurred costs and/or after pre-action protocols (in parking the pre-action phase includes the 'soft trace first' rule) have been ignored - can lead to severe costs consequences, such as an order for indemnity costs (extra costs) against the claimant.
  
• Late discontinuance can be considered an 'abuse of process' if it suggests the claimant never intended to bring the matter to a conclusion, or was "warehousing" the claim merely to put pressure on the defendant without intending to go to trial. Which is the pattern in single PCN cases maintained by DCB Legal.
  
• I am only asking for my fee back so I that I am not left out of pocket, and haven't even (yet) asked for my fixed attendance costs for either hearing.
• However if the learned judge thinks that I should also get fixed attendance and/or indemnity costs, I won't disagree.

gizzy6791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81870571#Comment_81870571

Thank you so much for this @Coupon-mad