Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

gizzy6791

Again, I cannot thank you enough for all your help @Coupon-mad ! I'll get those done and post back. 

gizzy6791

Updated my WS & DO below. I can only find a Scribd link for CEL vs Chan, and cannot find a link for CPMS v Akande to put in the reference section. The link for VCS v Carr is a Caselaw link, but I can't post links yet.

Primary changes are from point 9 onwards.

For point 6, should I leave as Defendant, or change to I following suit with the rest of the WS?

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 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.

3. 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.  

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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.

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

9. 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]. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on [DATE] to request the Particulars of claim (POC). After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. Exhibit [EMAIL]. 

[ADD DETAILS IF THEY DO/DONT RESPOND]

10. Upon seeking guidance, I today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

11. 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.

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

12.1. Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713

12.1.1. 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.

12.2. Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023)

12.2.1 In CEL v Chan, the court struck out a claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.7.5. The court held that the particulars of claim must specify the conduct constituting the breach, which was not done in that case.

12.2.2 Similarly, in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach, rendering the claim defective and liable to be struck out.

13.1. CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024)

13.1.1 In CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a parking claim due to the Claimant’s failure to specify the nature of the breach in the particulars of claim. The court held that the Defendant must be able to understand the case against them, which was not possible in that case.

13.1.2 The same applies here. The Claimant has failed to specify the nature of the alleged breach, and the claim should be struck out.

14. 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 - [LINK]

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) - [LINK]

CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) - [LINK]

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 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.

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

Coupon-mad

Chan and Akande are linked as a single PDF in @Le_Kirk's judgments thread.

And both are also linked in the Template Defence first post link to the Moorside legal defence which also has the wording to copy.

gizzy6791

Updated the WS.

For Chan and Akande, do I use that Dropbox link in my WS, or download the PDF and host it somewhere myself?

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 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.

3. 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.  

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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.

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

9. 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]. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on [DATE] to request the Particulars of claim (POC). After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. Exhibit [EMAIL]. 

[ADD DETAILS IF THEY DO/DONT RESPOND]

10. Upon seeking guidance, I today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

11. 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.

12. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

12.1. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

12.2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

12.3. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below in the Case References (15) to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage.

13. In addition, there is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. A recent case of note:  

13.1. Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713

13.2. 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.

14. 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:

15. Case Reference(s) -

Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [CASELAW LINK]

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) and CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) [DROPBOX LINK]

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 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.

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

Coupon-mad

Remove this from the end of para 12:

"at allocation stage."

And where you introduce Carr call it a binding authority instead of 'A recent case of note'.

And at the end of 13.2 add that the claim was struck out (your Draft Order is based on that fact!).

I see it's ParkingEye but which car park location?

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

I see it's ParkingEye but which car park location?

A Home Bargains car park.


Updated WS.

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 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.

3. 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.  

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. 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.

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

9. 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]. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on [DATE] to request the Particulars of claim (POC). After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. Exhibit [EMAIL]. 

[ADD DETAILS IF THEY DO/DONT RESPOND]

10. Upon seeking guidance, I today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

11. 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.

12. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

12.1. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

12.2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

12.3. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below in the Case References (15) to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out.

13. In addition, there is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. Binding authority:  

13.1. Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713

13.2. 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 and the claim was struck out.

14. 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:

15. Case Reference(s) -

Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [CASELAW LINK]

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) and CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) [DROPBOX LINK]

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 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.

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

Coupon-mad

Yep but point 2 is wrong. NOT: 'I can provide evidence if required'.  This WS is your chance to provide evidence (exhibits) NOW.

I would also add this but not written sarkily, just as a matter of fact that proves you were easy to trace;

Funny how DCBL found my new address to send this letter and request money, but never found it when they needed to send the court claim form.

gizzy6791

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

Updated paras 2 & 6:

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 address on the claim is [OLD ADDRESS]. I moved to my current address at [NEW ADDRESS] on [DATE]. In support of this, I attach [EXHIBITS-XX] showing the dates when I updated my address.

3. 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.  

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') must have queried the DVLA to obtain the registered keeper details for my previous address, to which they served the claim form to as per the POC, after the date I had moved. As they are only able to query the DVLA once per parking event, they must have used additional methods to find my current address, such as a bulk Experian trace, or similar very inexpensive and immediate credit reference agency address check, which they clearly must have done in order to send the letter dated [DATE] to notify me of the Default Judgment, and to request money. Therefore, I am unable to understand why, if they had my current address details, I wasn't notified of this judgment sooner and I could have taken action to prevent it. 

7. 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.

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

9. 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]. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on [DATE] to request the Particulars of claim (POC). After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. Exhibit [EMAIL]. 

[ADD DETAILS IF THEY DO/DONT RESPOND]

10. Upon seeking guidance, I today on [DATE] I have submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

11. 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.

12. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

12.1. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

12.2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

12.3. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below in the Case References (15) to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out.

13. In addition, there is a wealth of case law making reference to the failures of parking companies to correctly ascertain the addresses of defendants. Binding authority:  

13.1. Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713

13.2. 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 and the claim was struck out.

14. 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:

15. Case Reference(s) -

Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [ https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713 ]

Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023) & CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester County Court, May 2024) [ https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0 ]

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 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.

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

1505grandad

"Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713]"

When I click the link it states "page not found"

I can find the case when I click on the link found in the following post:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612281/court-of-appeal-judgment-carr-vs-vehicle-control-services-ltd

gizzy6791

1505grandad said:

"Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713 - [https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/713]"

When I click the link it states "page not found"

I can find the case when I click on the link found in the following post:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612281/court-of-appeal-judgment-carr-vs-vehicle-control-services-ltd

Must be the way the forum formatted the link. Fixed, thanks.