Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

Coupon-mad

Ah, you said the CCJ was in March (must have been April).

OK, so save the '4 months expired claim' argument to nearer the hearing date... once 4 months has expired, end of July!

But do remove the POC from your WS completely.

Put right the reference to 'VCS Carr from 2024' because we have the final judgment in 2025 and it's binding.

Change point 2 in your Draft order to this:

2. The claim is struck out pursuant to the reasons and principles in the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11 June 2025) and due to the POC failing to comply with Part 16, pursuant to Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

Coupon-mad

Make sure your answer to 'what order are you asking for? In the N244 matches your draft order.

Diarise to come back here on 20th July to do a Skeleton Argument like the one by @Truss_me

And don't you want to add your travel costs for the hearing and £95 for a day of lost salary or a day's wasted leave, here?

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

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

Ah, you said the CCJ was in March (must have been April).

Sorry, yes, I confused the dates, my fault. The case was issued on the 21st of March 2025, and the CCJ 16 April 2025.

Coupon-mad said:

Make sure your answer to 'what order are you asking for? In the N244 matches your draft order.

I assume I just add ‘Set Judgment Aside’ and provide a reason for disputing the Judgment that has been recorded, as per the N244 Notes?

Coupon-mad said:

And don't you want to add your travel costs for the heating and £95 for a day of lost salary or a day's wasted leave, here?

I hadn't actually thought about anything like that, I have been wrapped up with the thought of the CCJ set aside, and N244 fee.

Is the £95 a fixed/maximum amount, or do I add an exact days salary? Is there a set way of working out fuel costs that they require, or just work out a per mile figure, and this would be the distance to Northampton CNBC?

In terms of the N244 submission and what the next steps would be after finalising the WC, DO and DD.

Next steps?

• Complete N244 (Print & Sign it)
• Send to court along with WS, Draft Order & Draft Defence
• Ring CNBC and pay the fee

Do I need to wait the 14 days from the troublemaker22 email I sent to DCB Legal before proceeding?

Again, thank you for all of your help @Coupon-mad, I feel so out of my depth here. 

Coupon-mad

Yes you need to wait, in case DCB Legal reply. You must act promptly but reasonably. Do everything right.

I assume I just add ‘Set Judgment Aside’ and provide a reason for disputing the Judgment that has been recorded, as per the N244 Notes?

No. It must match your draft order, verbatim, or you could put: see Draft Order attached.

Your hearing won't be in Northampton! My goodness no. It goes out to your local court. You can ask for a half or full day off work; if that's over the 'standard maximum' fixed costs of £95 per day you'll need to attach proof (along with your address evidence exhibits in your bundle). 

gizzy6791

Again, thank you so much @Coupon-mad. I'll make the amendments to my WS and get started on the DD!

My local court is very close, so I probably won't request travel costs.

gizzy6791

So I've managed to work on this some more and have finalised the WS, DO and have started the DD. I'll paste each separately below to mahe quoting easier, and will add any notes to each if needed.

gizzy6791

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. 1234567890 [CLAIM-REF] Judgment dated [DATE]) be set aside.

2. The claim is struck out pursuant to the reasons and principles in the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11 June 2025) and due to the POC failing to comply with Part 16, pursuant to Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

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.

11. 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.  

12. 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 - [CASELAW LINK HERE]

gizzy6791

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.

Not overly concerned with claiming half a days salary, or due to proximity to my local court, transport costs. My main concern is the N244 fee and having the CCJ removed.

gizzy6791

DRAFT DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on [DATE], as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. In addition, the Defendant had received no correspondence from the Claimant, or anyone representing the Claimant until the letter of Default Judgment received on [DATE].

Conclusion

4. The Defendant believes the Claimant has not adhered to CPR 6.9 (3) where they had failed to show due diligence in using an address at which the Defendant no longer resided. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the Defendants 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. 

5. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

6.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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 that the facts stated in this defence 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:


Struggled with the draft defence as I wasn't entirely sure what to leave and what to remove, but this is what I have so far.

Coupon-mad

Certainly DO NOT put in a draft defence!  Eek no! That's the last thing you want. Don't burden yourself with giving the judge a way to let the claim continue.

The hearing - that you are paying for - is to wipe the CCJ and strike out the claim (scam over) not to allow you to defend. You want the claim struck out!

This is meant to be the new para 2 of your Draft Order, not in the WS:

2. The claim is struck out pursuant to the reasons and principles in the binding Court of Appeal judgment in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 713 (11 June 2025) and due to the POC failing to comply with Part 16, pursuant to Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

However, you do need to explain in your WS why the authority of VCS v Carr means the claim must be struck out.

And explain why Chan and Akande (for different, alternative reasons) mean the Claim should be struck out.

Wording for those is everywhere. IIRC those two matters are probably both in the skeleton argument by @Truss_me