Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

Coupon-mad

Para 14 is wrong. You aren't wanting to defend. The claim must be struck out as per Carr, or - in the alternative - pursuant to the rationale in Chan and Akande.

And change this:

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. 

to this:

6. Obtaining the registered keeper data from the DVLA was done right at the outset (PCN stage) by this Claimant and as the Judges at the Court of Appeal stated in the videoed hearing of Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the DVLA vehicle address is not confirmed as valid for service and is only a "starting point". Having improperly used the DVLA address for this Claim - despite my silence being sufficient 'reason to believe' the address was no longer valid - DCB Group miraculously managed to trace my address shortly after the default judgment. This conduct breaches both the CPRs and their client's Code of Practice and this was either deliberate or negligent. It will be one or the other. Neither puts this court 'Superuser' in a good light, hence why the Court of Appeal gave VCS' barrister such short shrift in the official video hearing on 4th March:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs

gizzy6791

Updated para 6 and 14.

Also, as I'm asking for it to be struck out, do I still need para 1 in the DD asking for it to be set aside?

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. Obtaining the registered keeper data from the DVLA was done right at the outset (PCN stage) by this Claimant and as the Judges at the Court of Appeal stated in the videoed hearing of Phillip Carr v Vehicle Control Services LTD ('VCS') [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the DVLA vehicle address is not confirmed as valid for service and is only a "starting point". Having improperly used the DVLA address for this Claim - despite my silence being sufficient 'reason to believe' the address was no longer valid - DCB Group miraculously managed to trace my address shortly after the default judgment. This conduct breaches both the CPRs and their client's Code of Practice and this was either deliberate or negligent. It will be one or the other. Neither puts this court 'Superuser' in a good light, hence why the Court of Appeal gave VCS' barrister such short shift in the official video hearing in 4th March:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs

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 believe that the Default Judgment against me was issued incorrectly and thus I therefore respectfully request that 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.

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.

Coupon-mad

Also, as I'm asking for it to be struck out, do I still need para 1 in the DD asking for it to be set aside?

Of course you do: "It" being the CCJ.

The claim is not the CCJ. Not the same "it".

This is now ready, except your para 7 should be moved down to be the last paragraph before the statement of truth.

Finally don't forget to diarise when the 4 months us up from the claim issued date (20th July?) and come back here then and copy the '4 months dead' case law into a skeleton argument like @Jack5656 and @icy_fox

1505grandad

".........why the Court of Appeal gave VCS' barrister such short shift in the official video hearing in 4th March:"

Pedantic observation  -  should this be "on"?

gizzy6791

1505grandad said:

".........why the Court of Appeal gave VCS' barrister such short shift in the official video hearing in 4th March:"

Pedantic observation  -  should this be "on"?

Yes I agree.

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

Also, as I'm asking for it to be struck out, do I still need para 1 in the DD asking for it to be set aside?

Of course you do: "It" being the CCJ.

The claim is not the CCJ. Not the same "it".

This is now ready, except your para 7 should be moved down to be the last paragraph before the statement of truth.

Finally don't forget to diarise when the 4 months us up from the claim issued date (20th July?) and come back here then and copy the '4 months dead' case law into a skeleton argument like @Jack5656 and @icy_fox

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad for the clarification, and for all of your time and help. I've updated the WS with those changes.

Next Steps?

1. Wait the 14 days from the email sent to DCB Legal, update the WS with the outcome.

2. After the 14 days, phone CNBC, pay the N244 fee, while on the phone, email them the WS, with the DD and any evidence attached, ask for an email for confirmation of payment and receipt of the Docs I emailed. (Is there a format preference, PDF?)

(Do any of these need CC'ing to DCB at the same time or just CNBC?)

3. Wait for the 4 months to pass, come back and do the '4 months dead' case law into a skeleton argument.

Umkomaas

1505grandad said:

".........why the Court of Appeal gave VCS' barrister such short shift in the official video hearing in 4th March:"

Pedantic observation  -  should this be "on"?

.... and 'shift' should be 'shrift'.

Coupon-mad

Ha, fat fingers on my phone!

gizzy6791

Just pre-empting any response from DCBL and starting to fill in the N244 form. The letter from DCBL asking for money and stating I have a CCJ states the Claimant as DCB Legal and the POC states the Claimant as Parkingeye Ltd, I assume I put Parkingeye Ltd on the N244 as the Claimant and not DCB Legal? 

It also asks for reference for both the Claimant name and Defendant name, is this the claim no?

Name of Court. Leave blank, or put my local court?

gizzy6791

Also, as you can't fit all the draft order in box 3, is it acceptable to simply put "Please see attached Draft Order."?

The N244 "Help" form states: "It is not necessary to complete questions 4 – 9" 

Would it be better to fill them in?