CCJ From Old Address Related to Parking Fine - Seeking advice on set-aside strategy

eyecorn1

DRAFT ORDER

CLAIM No: xxx
BETWEEN:
xxx (Claimant)
-- and --
xxx (Defendant)
______________________________________________
DRAFT ORDER
______________________________________________

 

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated xx xxx 2025 and the annexed witness statement;

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

AND UPON the court taking note that the Claimant was not entitled to default judgment, having failed to serve on Defendant's current residential address;

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 1.      The default judgment dated 6 May 2025 be set aside.

2.       Costs to be reserved.

3.      Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4:00 pm on 4 August 2025, paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £313 and the claim shall be 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. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm on 18 August 2025.

5. Should the Claimant discontinue the Claim after the CCJ is set aside, paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect and the Claimant shall pay the Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £313 plus the Defendant's costs for attending the hearing.

6. That all enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

**I used this old 6-point draft order because if I submit the application now,  the claim form has not yet expired but will expire on 4th August 2025. Is this an accurate way to approach this? Or should I just wait it out for 2 weeks and and then use the 3-point draft order?**

eyecorn1

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

I, xxx of 18 Station Close, xxx, 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. xxx Judgment dated xxx) be set aside.

 

2. The address on the claim is xxx. I moved to my current address at xxx on xxx. In support of this, I attach [EXHIBIT 1 – utility bill] showing a utility bill from my address.

 

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM  TO MY CURRENT ADDRESS

3. The Claimant served the claim to an old address. The Claimant's representative traced and indisputably held my new address, because they had purportedly used it for a Letter Before Action in January 2025 (a letter which I have never received, but which they provided a soft copy to me via email post-judgment). To then revert to a known to be out-of-date address is a clear breach of  both the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the industry Code of Practice.  These facts and issues are explained further below. 

4. 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.  

5. The Claimant's representative found the Defendant's email address  (xxx) after default judgment and then utilised same to serve notice of enforcement on xxx 2025 via their enforcement company Empira Ltd.[EXHIBIT 2 – Empira email]. This email address could have been used as an alternative method by which service could have been effected, per CPR 6.9(4).

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.

 

THE INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMUNITY CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED  

7. International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice was not followed. The IPC Code of Practice 2019 - Version 7, November 2019, clause 22.1 states that “…Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings…”. 

 

DVLA ADDRESS DATA MAY NOT BE RELIABLE

8. 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 – the Claimant’s representative miraculously managed to trace my email 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 on 4th March:

 

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

 

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

 

SEQUENCE OF RECENT EVENTS

10. I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a notice of enforcement from Empira Ltd on 24 June 2025 at my email address. Believing this to be a scam (as I had never had any dealings with Empira Ltd or their named client, Gladstones Solicitors), I sought and obtained a credit report from a credit reference agency, Experian. This is when I found out there was really a default County Court Judgment  (CCJ) against me.

10.1 On 27 June 2025, I obtained the County Court Judgment report from the Civil National Business Centre in relation to claim M8GF71G9 to ascertain details of this default CCJ against me [EXHIBIT 3 – CNBC email].

10.2 On 30 June 2025, I contacted UK Car Park Management (Claimant) and their solicitors - Gladstones Solicitors – via email to inform them of my shock discovery and to invite them to jointly apply for a set-aside of the default judgment, with the Claimant picking up the costs. [EXHIBIT 4 – Initial email to Gladstones].  In this initial email, I gave them 2 weeks to respond which would have elapsed on the 14 July 2025.

 

10.3   On 14 July 2025, I received a response from Gladstones Solicitors requesting me to forward a copy of the intended set-aside application to them for consideration. They also provided copies of correspondence which revealed they held my current address  but chose to revert to my old address to file a claim. [EXHIBIT 5 – First response from Gladstones]

 

10.4  On 16 July 2025, I forwarded a copy of the set-aside application form to the Claimant and their solicitors (Gladstone Solicitors) for consideration. I requested a response by Thursday 17 July but never got one. I then proceeded to give them an extension of 1 week [EXHIBIT 6 – Second response from Gladstones?]

10.5 On 21 July 2025, I received another response from Gladstones Solicitors which did not indicate any willingness to jointly apply for a set-aside.

 [ADD DETAILS IF THEY DO/DONT RESPOND]

10.6 Upon seeking guidance, I today on xxx 2025 have submitted my case 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.

 

SUMMARY

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.

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.

 

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: xxx 2025

 

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

Coupon-mad

This is a bit old. You don't want to have to defend, nor your costs reserved!

There's a good one here in recent days by @TrippleGGG

Your application should say that you want the claim struck out, pursuant to the authorities of VCS v Carr and/or Chan and Akande. 

Why not get the application in tomorrow, with the WS and evidence of your address move. No mention of the 4 month expiry but stating that a Draft Order and Skeleton Argument will follow once the case is allocated to the local court.

Then you can pounce with a skelly and Draft Order in a few weeks time, going to town on VCS v Carr and the fact the claim has expired unserved. And attaching the 3 transcripts of Carr, Chan and Akande. And your costs assessment.

eyecorn1

Coupon-mad said:

This is a bit old. You don't want to have to defend, nor your costs reserved!

There's a good one here in recent days by @TrippleGGG

Your application should say that you want the claim struck out, pursuant to the authorities of VCS v Carr and/or Chan and Akande. 

Why not get the application in tomorrow, with the WS and evidence of your address move. No mention of the 4 month expiry but stating that a Draft Order and Skeleton Argument will follow once the case is allocated to the local court.

Then you can pounce with a skelly and Draft Order in a few weeks time, going to town on VCS v Carr and the fact the claim has expired unserved. And attaching the 3 transcripts of Carr, Chan and Akande. And your costs assessment.

Can't thank you enough, @Coupon-mad . This had been my dilemma the whole time about when to submit the application. I've just checked out @TrippleGGG's post and I'll use some of the points on their WS as they don't have a draft order.

Where should I include the caveat that I'm going to add a draft order and skeleton argument? In the N244 application or in the WS? I'm guessing it's not going to be complicated to do this? 

Also, just like @TrippleGGG, I haven;t really any Skeleton Arguments and not sure how these are used? Perhaps you could point me to some good threads?

thanks again for your help

Coupon-mad

Add it in the WS near the start and say you are making the application promptly, therefore this bundle only includes the N244, the WS and evidence that the address used for service was out of date. A skeleton argument and Draft Order will be supplied once the application is allocated/received at xxxxxxx court.

Make sure your N244 says the order you want is the CCJ to be set aside, the claim struck out and your costs to be paid by the Claimant, pursuant to the landmark case of VCS v Carr.

To find a recent skelly, search the forum or look at the two cases I link in the NEWBIES thread. One of them probably used one.

eyecorn1

Coupon-mad said:

Add it in the WS near the start and say you are making the application promptly, therefore this bundle only includes the N244, the WS and evidence that the address used for service was out of date. A skeleton argument and Draft Order will be supplied once the application is allocated/received at xxxxxxx court.

Make sure your N244 says the order you want is the CCJ to be set aside, the claim struck out and your costs to be paid by the Claimant, pursuant to the landmark case of VCS v Carr.

To find a recent skelly, search the forum or look at the two cases I link in the NEWBIES thread. One of them probably used one.

Thanks again Coupon. I'll reword my WS to include the above and post here later today.

eyecorn1

Sorry I couldn't post on Tuesday due to some critical work that came in and having to prepare for a trip tomorrow. I've now re-drafter both my N244 form and WS and will post below for any feedback/comments. I have removed every reference to the 4-moth expiry of the claim form and I am quite happy to submit my application tomorrow so I can start working on my skeleton argument for the hearing

eyecorn1

Form N244:

Name of court: Civil National Business Centre

Claim No. <CLAIM NUMBER>

Claimant’s name (including ref.): UK Car Park Management Limited <CPM NUMBER>

Defendant’s name (including ref.) <MY NAME>

Date: <Date submitted>

 

1.        <MY NAME>

2.        Defendant

3.       

1. That the default judgment dated 6 May 2025 be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2

2. That the claim be struck out pursuant to the landmark cases of VCS vs Carr, Civil Enforcement v Chan

3. That the Defendant's costs be paid by the Claimant on an indemnity basis

4.        Yes

5.        At a hearing

6.        <Left blank as per guidance notes sheet, as I have no idea>

7.        N/A

8.        District Judge

9.        UK Car Park Management Limited

            9a <Left blank. Should I include the claimant’s solicitor’s address here?>

10.   Witness statement ticked. The following text also included in N244 box 10.

 

1.) DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.

The defendant asks that the judgment dated 6 May 2025 be set aside because pursuant to CPR 13.2 (a) in the case of a judgment in default of a defence, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(2) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied.The Claimant served proceedings at an address not used by the Defendant since April 2024 in violation of CPR 6.9(3). The Claimant had the Defendant's current address which they supposedly used for a Letter Before Claim in January 2025, but which the Defendant never received. Furthermore, the Claimant had the Defendant's email address which they chose to utilise only after default judgment to serve notice of enforcement. Per CPR 6.9(4), this email address could have been used as an alternative method by which service of the claim form could have been effected, per CPR 6.9(4). Hence the Defendant asks the court to set aside the judgment pursuant to CPR 13.2.

 

2.) THE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

The Defendant also asks that the claim be 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 particulars of claim (POC) failing to comply with Part 16, pursuant to Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

 

3.) DEFENDANT's COSTS

It is requested that the Claimant be made to pay the Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis. This is summarily assessed at £313 plus the costs for attending the hearing 

 

 

Even if the court is not satisfied that my case meets the criteria relating to a mandatory set aside due to defective service (CPR 13.2), I will say that I also meet the criteria for the CCJ to be set aside on the grounds of CPR 13.3:

 

(1) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –

(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why -

(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

 

(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

 

11.   No. Left blank

<Statement of truth, date, address information on pages 3 and 4 filled in as appropriate>

 

N244 Box 10

eyecorn1

1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1.1        I am xxx, and I am the Defendant in this matter. 

1.2        This is my supporting statement to my application dated 25 July 2025 requesting to:

(a)         Set aside the default judgment dated 6 May 2025 (Claim No. xxxxx) as it was not properly served at my current address.

(b)         Order for the original claim to be dismissed.

(c)         Order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £313 as reimbursement for the set aside fee, plus the costs for attending the hearing.

 

1.3         As the application is being made promptly, the application bundle initially includes the N244 Application Notice, this witness statement and evidence that the address used for service was out of date. A skeleton argument and Draft Order will be supplied once the application is received and allocated to a District Judge at County Court.

 

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1        I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event.

2.2        I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me as the Defendant on 6 May 2025. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Car Park Management Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from 28 March 2024.

2.3         The claim form was not served at my current address, and I was therefore unaware of the Default County Court Judgment against me until I received a notice of enforcement at my email address on 24 June 2025 from the Claimant’s representative. I have provided evidence of the ‘notice of enforcement’ email [Appendix A  – Notice of Enforcement] received from Empira Ltd, acting on behalf of Gladstones Solicitors - the Claimant’s Solicitors. As the notice of enforcement contained no details of the said judgment or the alleged offence, I carried out a credit reference check to confirm this default judgment was real and the email was not a spam email. After confirming, I then contacted the Civil National Business Centre and was provided details of the default CCJ.

2.4        The address on the claim is xxx. I moved to my current address at xxx on 26 April 2024 during which my bank account, council tax and utility bills have been registered to this address. In support of this, I attach a utility bill from my current address [Appendix B– Water bill at current address].

2.5.       The Claimant served the claim at my old address despite admittedly holding my current address. The Claimant's representative traced and indisputably held my new address, because they supposedly used it for a Letter Before Action in January 2025 (a letter which I never received, but a soft copy of which they supplied to me via email post-judgment). I have provided the correspondence pack which they supplied by email on 14 July 2025 [Appendix C – Gladstones First Reply]. To then revert to a known to be out-of-date address is a clear breach of  both the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and the industry Code of Practice.  These facts and issues are explained further below. 

2.6       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. This has led to the claim being incorrectly served to an old address and an irregular judgment.  

2.7       The Claimant's representative also held my email address (xxx) as they used it to serve notice of enforcement on 24 June 2025 via their enforcement company Empira Ltd. This email address could have been used as an alternative method by which service could have been effected, per CPR 6.9(4).

2.8       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.

 

3 SEQUENCE OF RECENT EVENTS

3.1        I have responded to this matter as promptly as possible. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a notice of enforcement from Empira Ltd on 24 June 2025 at my email address. Believing this to be a scam (as I had never had any dealings with Empira Ltd or their named client, Gladstones Solicitors), I sought and obtained a credit report from a credit reference agency, Experian . This is when I found confirmed there was actually a default County Court Judgment  (CCJ) against me.

3.2        On 27 June 2025, I obtained the County Court Judgment report from the Civil National Business Centre in relation to claim M8GF71G9 to ascertain details of this default CCJ against me [Appendix D – CNBC email].

3.3        On 30 June 2025, I contacted UK Car Park Management (Claimant) and their solicitors - Gladstones Solicitors – via email to inform them of my shock discovery and to invite them to jointly apply for a set-aside of the default judgment, with the Claimant picking up the costs. [Appendix E – Initial email to Claimant].  In this initial email, I gave them 2 weeks to respond which would have elapsed on the 14 July 2025.

 3.4          On 14 July 2025, I received a response from Gladstones Solicitors requesting me to forward a copy of the intended set-aside application to them for consideration. They also provided copies of correspondence which revealed they held my current address but chose to revert to my old address to file a claim.

3.5        On 16 July 2025, I forwarded a copy of the set-aside application form to the Claimant and their solicitors (Gladstone Solicitors) for consideration for a joint application. I requested a response by Thursday 17 July but never got one. I then proceeded to give them an extension of 1 week to allow them more time to respond. [Appendix F – Second email to Claimant]

3.6        On 21 July 2025, I received another response from Gladstones Solicitors which did not indicate any willingness to jointly apply for a set-aside.

3.7        Upon seeking guidance, I today on 25 July 2025 have submitted my case to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case.  

3.8        I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me at an old address despite holding my correct contact details (current address and email address) at the time of the claim. I was therefore denied the opportunity to defend the claim. 

 

4 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION

4.1        Improper Service (CPR 13.2)

4.1.1    The court must set aside the judgment if it was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, which requires that an individual be served at their “usual or last known residence.”

4.1.2    The claim was sent to xxx, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at xxx on 26 April 2024, as evidenced by his utility bill.

4.1.3    The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the claim was served at  the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice   (Version 7, November 2019, clause 22.1) which states that

 “…Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings…”. 

The Claimant held my current address and email address but ignored both and chose to serve the claim at an old address.

4.1.4    This failure mirrors the principles established in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where the court held that claimants must take reasonable steps to ensure service is effective. The court emphasised that serving a claim at an outdated address, without reasonable diligence, renders the judgment void. Initial findings from the Court of Appeal hearing are provided separately for the court’s reference.

4.2        Discretionary Set Aside (CPR 13.3)

4.2.1    On the basis of CPR 13.3:

(1)  In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if –

(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why -

(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

 

5 JUDICIAL PRECEDENT        

5.1        VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 04 March 2025)

5.1.1    The Court of Appeal in VCS Ltd v Carr held that claimants must take reasonable steps to ensure service is effective. The court emphasised that serving a claim at an outdated address, without reasonable diligence, renders the judgment void.

5.1.2    The court also highlighted the importance of the overriding objective, which requires the court to consider the justice of the case. The Defendant in this case was unable to defend the claim due to improper service, and the judgment should be set aside to avoid injustice.

5.1.3    A transcript of this case has been included in Appendix D and the video link to the court hearing is below 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvK6XwAGHcs&ab_channel=RoyalCourtsofJusticeCourt69

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

5.2.1    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.

5.2.2    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.

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

5.3.1    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.

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

 

6 CONCLUSION

6.1        I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgment against me should be set aside due to improper service, and the claim should be struck out as it is without merit, and fails to comply with the CPR. 

6.2        In VCS v Carr - which is binding 2025 case law from the Court of Appeal - service was held to be invalid and the claim form had expired. Default judgment was rightly set aside and the claim was struck out as expired. (the 4 months service deadline had passed and the courts have no discretion to extend the life of an expired claim).

6.3        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. Similarly, 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.

6.4        The above cases form strong precedent upon which the court can rely to strike out the original claim.

6.5        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.

6.3        I also ask the Court to order the reimbursement of the set-aside fee of £313 as well as all the Defendant's Court attendance and other costs from the Claimant on an indemnity basis. The claim was not allocated to track, so costs are not dependant upon 'unreasonable conduct' and thus there must be costs in the case for the winning party, as also was the case in VCS v Carr.

 

APPENDICES

Appendix A  – Email Notice of Enforcement

Appendix B– Water bill at current address

Appendix C – Gladstones First Reply

Appendix D – CNBC email

Appendix E – Initial email to Claimant

Appendix F – Second email to Claimant

Appendix G - VCS Ltd v Carr Transcript

 

 Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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 ________________

 

Date __________________

 

Coupon-mad

Looks great. Go for it!