Another out of the blue CCJ from DCBL.

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

Yes I would state you have made strenuous efforts to seek their consent but just got an absurd response blaming you for their negligence in not tracing your address.

Thank you @Coupon-mad I'll update my witness statement and repost here before submitting!

gizzy6791

@Coupon-mad

Update witness statement:

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, NAME of 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: NUMBER Reference: REFERENCE) 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 EXHIBIT-A showing the date when I ended the tenancy at my previous address, and EXHIBIT-B, EXHIBIT-C and EXHIBIT-D showing when I updated my address with various companies. 

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 shrift in the official video hearing on 4th March:

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

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

8. 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 9th June 2025, dated 2nd June 2025. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on 10th June 2025 to request the Particulars of claim (POC). After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email (EXHIBIT-E) inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. 

After waiting 14 days, I received a response from DCB Legal requesting evidence of change of address, to which I supplied EXHIBIT-A, EXHIBIT-B, EXHIBIT-C and EXHIBIT-D as attached.

I waited yet another 14 days for a response from DCB Legal, only to receive a response that was unreasonable and absurd, essentially blaming me for their negligence in not tracing my address promptly.

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

10. 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.

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

12. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appears 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:

12.1. 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 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. 

12.2. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th 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 (16) 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' 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 (11th June 2025) and due to the POC failing to comply with Part 16, pursuant to Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

15. 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.

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:

16. 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

Coupon-mad

The case was March 25

Exactly what date was the CCJ?

(Not the claim form issue date).

You should submit this only once the 4 months has passed and add the usual argument about the claim being 'expired' after 4 months (authority: VCS v Carr).

Do Chan or Akande apply to your POC? Have we established this? Which parking firm?

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

The case was March 25

Exactly what date was the CCJ?

(Not the claim form issue date).

You should submit this only once the 4 months has passed and add the usual argument about the claim being 'expired' after 4 months (authority: VCS v Carr).

Do Chan or Akande apply to your POC? Have we established this? Which parking firm?

The case was issued on the 21st of March 2025 and the CCJ 16th April 2025.

IIRC, you said to cite Chan / Akande. The firm is Parkingeye.

Thanks @Coupon-mad

gizzy6791

FYI:

Particulars of claim: 1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE [REGISTRATION] AT HOME BARGAINS [LOCATION] 2. THE PCN(S) WERE ISSUED ON 09/05/2024 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:VEHICLE REMAINED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.03 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3. COSTS AND COURT FEES

Coupon-mad

Yep that's all good then. WS looks good except I wouldn't say that the CNBC gave you the POC. I'd say they provided some details.

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that's all good then. WS looks good except I wouldn't say that the CNBC gave you the POC. I'd say they provided some details.

 Again, thanks @Coupon-mad !

Updated:

8. 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 9th June 2025, dated 2nd June 2025. I immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) on 10th June 2025 and they provided me with some information. After which, I approached DCB Legal and Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd ('DCBL') via email (EXHIBIT-E) inviting them to make a joint application to set aside the judgment with the Claimant picking up the costs. 

After waiting 14 days, I received a response from DCB Legal requesting evidence of change of address, to which I supplied EXHIBIT-A, EXHIBIT-B, EXHIBIT-C and EXHIBIT-D as attached.

I waited yet another 14 days for a response from DCB Legal, only to receive a response that was unreasonable and absurd, essentially blaming me for their negligence in not tracing my address promptly.

Coupon-mad said:

You should submit this only once the 4 months has passed and add the usual argument about the claim being 'expired' after 4 months (authority: VCS v Carr).

So, only submit the N244 / WS etc...at the 4 month point, which from the CCJ date, would be 16th July?

Coupon-mad

Yes I think get past that date then in it goes.

Don't forget to add the usual argument about the claim being 'expired' after 4 months (authority: VCS v Carr). This is seen on recent CCJ set aside threads this year.

If there is “reason to believe” under CPR 6.9(3) that the address is not good for service, claimants who do not then take reasonable steps to trace any new address prior to litigation risk invalid service and expiry of the claim form under CPR 7.5. And this is what has happened in this case and it's also why the Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance Judge in the landmark binding 'parking CCJ' case of VCS v Carr and they didn't just set aside the CCJ, they agreed DJ Iyer was correct on a CPR point, to strike the claim out.

gizzy6791

Coupon-mad said:

Yes I think get past that date then in it goes.

Don't forget to add the usual argument about the claim being 'expired' after 4 months (authority: VCS v Carr). This is seen on recent CCJ set aside threads this year.

If there is “reason to believe” under CPR 6.9(3) that the address is not good for service, claimants who do not then take reasonable steps to trace any new address prior to litigation risk invalid service and expiry of the claim form under CPR 7.5. And this is what has happened in this case and it's also why the Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance Judge in the landmark binding 'parking CCJ' case of VCS v Carr and they didn't just set aside the CCJ, they agreed DJ Iyer was correct on a CPR point, to strike the claim out.

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


I've added that as a sub point under point 3 as it seems the logical place:

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.  

3.1 If there is “reason to believe” under CPR 6.9 (3) that the address is not good for service, claimants who do not then take reasonable steps to trace any new address prior to litigation risk invalid service and expiry of the claim form under CPR 7.5. And this is what has happened in this case and it's also why the Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance Judge in the landmark binding 'parking CCJ' case of VCS v Carr and they didn't just set aside the CCJ, they agreed DJ Iyer was correct on a CPR point, to strike the claim out.

Coupon-mad

Yep and you should add that the 4 month deadline to properly serve the claim form has now passed.