CCJ from parking fine

TrippleGGG

Here are the particulars of the claim:

Claim No: XXXXXXX

 

Claimant: UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

 

Claimant solicitor: DCB LEGAL LTD

Telephone: 0203 434 0433

Reference: XXXXXXXXX

 

Judgment amount: 313.80

 

Particulars of claim: 1. THE DEFENDANT(D) IS INDEBTED TO THE       CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXXX AT XXXXX. THE PCN     DETAILS ARE 21/07/2019,XXXXXX 3.THE   PCN(S) WAS ISSUED ON PRIVATE LAND OWNED OR   MANAGED BY C. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN      BREACH OF THE TERMS ON CS SIGNS (THE         CONTRACT), THUS INCURRING THE PCN(S).4. THE  DRIVER AGREED TO PAY WITHIN 28 DAYS BUT DID  NOT. D IS LIABLE AS THE DRIVER OR KEEPER.    DESPITE REQUESTS, THE PCN(S) IS OUTSTANDING. THE CONTRACT ENTITLES C TO DAMAGES.          AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS                      1. £160 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 RATEOF £0.02 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3.COSTS AND COURT FEES     

Coupon-mad

Good to see.

Your WS cites Chan & Akande correctly. 

TrippleGGG

Final WS below. One other question:
- Do I simply attach the appendices to the email along with the N244 form?

1 WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

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

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

(a)         Set aside the default judgment dated 03 Nov 2022 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.

 

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 03 Nov 2022. I am aware that the Claimant is UK Parking Control Limited and that the assumed claim is in respect of an unpaid Parking Charge Notice from 21 July 2019.

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 signed up to Credit Karma on 08 July 2025 and did a credit history check. I have provided evidence of the ‘welcome’ email (Appendix A) received from Credit Karma when I created an account dated to 08 July 2025. I then contacted the Civil National Business Centre and was informed of the details of the CCJ.

2.4        The address on the claim is Xxxxx. I moved to my current address: xxxxx on 22 June 2022 during which my bank account, council tax and utility bills have been registered to this address. In support of this, I have provided evidence of a bank statement (Appendix registered to my current address and my signed tenancy agreement (Appendix C).

 

3 SEQUENCE OF RECENT EVENTS

3.1         I first discovered there was a default County Court Judgment against me when I noticed my poor credit rating on my Monzo mobile banking account in early July 2025. Further investigation led me to perform a credit history search using Credit Karma which informed me of the CCJ and the court name.

3.2        On 09 July 2025, I contacted the Civil National Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgment. I received an email containing the Particulars of the Claim.

3.3        On xx July 2025, I submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgment and fairly present my case. I acted swiftly once I became aware of the CCJ, with the time taken to prepare my witness statement and collect evidence. I believe I acted with sufficient promptness as specified in CPR 13.3(2).

3.4        I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held my correct contact details 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 XXXX, an address where the Defendant no longer resided at the time of service. The Defendant moved to his current address at XXXX, as evidenced by his tenancy agreement.

4.1.3    The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice 24.1c. A simple and inexpensive “soft trace” (costing 28 pence) would have revealed the Defendant’s current address. The Defendant had 4.5 months to establish my current 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    There are very good reasons to set aside this exaggerated claim, which includes a disproportionate and indeed, false 'debt recovery' sum.  In fact, no debt recovery occurred nor cost the Claimant any money whatsoever, in addition to the alleged £160 parking charge.  The Defendant has good prospects of defending a claim, if served with one, but has seen no evidence, basis nor particulars of claim.

4.2.2    Given that more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served) the Defendant submits that this particular claim is dead and the period for service cannot be extended by this application process.  The Defendant has no details of this claim, therefore, if the Claimant believes there is a cause of action then the correct procedure would be to file a claim afresh and to the right address, after furnishing the Defendant with the information required under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, issued this time to the correct address for service for this Defendant, which is xxxxx

 

5 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS        

 

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.

5.2.3    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.

3.2.2    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, fails to comply with the CPR and is now expired. 

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        The expiry risk was a feature of VCS v Carr: once service is defective, the claim form’s four-month life continues to run; if it expires there is no second bite without a fresh claim or relief under CPR 7.6 (which may be unavailable and which this Claimant has not sought).

6.4        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 the 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 - Credit Karma Signup Email

Appendix B - xxxxxx July 2022 Bank Statement

Appendix C – xxxxxxx Tenancy Agreement Signed JUN-2022

Appendix D - 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 __________________

 

 

 

 

TrippleGGG

Hello, I just received this email from DCB legal. Not sure what to make of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

"Dear Sirs,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

We write further to your N244 Application.

In order for us to review this matter accordingly, we request that you provide evidence of a utility bill, dated November 2022, which confirms that you did not reside at the address where the Claim Form was served.

Upon review of sufficient evidence which confirms that you did not reside at the address where the Claim Form was served, our Client would not oppose your N244 Application."

Coupon-mad

To look reasonable send it to them but remind them that DCB and/or their client are at fault (failure to serve the claim at the right address and failure to comply with the industry Code of Practice regarding mandatory checking of Defendants' addresses before litigation).

End by saying you will not agree to a consent order that does not grant the Defendant's costs.

TrippleGGG

@Coupon-mad - I have a hearing set for a weeks time. UKPC have filed their response below. Any advice on how to tackle this in the hearing?

Also, can I push to get the judge to rule that a new claim be started. In which case the 6 year limit has been surpassed and they can't sue for breach of contract?



We write in relation to the above matter wherein we are instructed to act on behalf of the

Claimant.

We have received the Defendant’s Application dated xxxxx and note the content. It is respectfully submitted that the Claim Form was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9. Pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address by conducting a pre-issue trace. The trace result provided the Claimant with the knowledge of the Defendant’s address, where the Claim Form was then subsequently served. As the Defendant failed to respond to the Claim Form, Judgment in default was obtained against them.

At the time of the contravention, the Defendant unsuccessfully appealed the Parking Charge.

Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation that they received no correspondence is misconceived.

Within their appeal, the Defendant confirmed that their service address was “xxxxx”. Despite the Claimant’s response to the Defendant’s appeal clearly outlining the next steps in the event of non-payment, the Defendant failed to further engage with the appeals process or make payment.

Due to the Defendant’s failure to engage with the appeal response and the amount of time which had passed, the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address by conducting a pre-issue trace before commencing legal proceedings, pursuant to CPR 6.9 (3). The trace concluded that the Defendant’s last known address was "xxxxxx” and as such, the Claim Form was issued to this address accordingly. When locating the Defendant’s last known address, DCB Legal utilised a thirdparty trace provider. We can confirm that the trace located the Defendant’s last known address based off multiple sources such as open accounts and credit agreements.

Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Application, the Defendant alleges that they did not reside at the address where the Claim Form was served. Respectfully, no evidence of the same has previously been provided to the Claimant or the Claimant’s representatives prior to the Defendant’s N244 Application.

In view of the above, please find enclosed the Claimant’s proposed Draft Order. The Claimant has decided to take an economical approach to allow the Defendant an opportunity to Defend the Claim. We would be grateful if the Court would place the attached Draft Order on the Court file in readiness for the Hearing listed on xxxx. We respectfully excuse our Client’s attendance at the hearing on xxx. This is meant with no disrespect to the Court, but is a decision made to save incurring any further costs. In the event that the Defendant also seeks to recover the costs of making the Application to set the Judgment aside, it is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has not acted unreasonably. The Claimant has therefore followed the correct process and had no reason to believe that the Defendant did not reside at the address where the Claim Form was served. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant requests an Order pursuant to the enclosed Draft Order.

UPON the Claimant considering the Defendant’s N244 Application.

AND UPON the Claimant accepting that, although the claim was correctly served at the Defendant’s last

known address pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not receive the Claim Form and therefore did not

have opportunity to defend the Claim.

AND UPON the Claimant agreeing that, in view of the above, there is some other good reason for

Judgment to be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3.

IT IS ORDERED THAT: -

1. The Judgment entered herein on the xx/11/2022 be and is hereby set aside.

2. It is recorded that a request for cancellation of the judgment has been sent to Registry Trust Limited.

3. The Defendant be Order to file and serve a response to the Claim within 14 days from the date of this sealed

Order.

4. In default of paragraph 3, the Claimant shall be at liberty to enter Judgment against the Defendant.

5. There be no order as to costs.

Coupon-mad

Also, can I push to get the judge to rule that a new claim be started. In which case the 6 year limit has been surpassed and they can't sue for breach of contract?

Yes. But mainly, VCS v Carr is what you should be talking about at the hearing.

Mere silence to pre-action letters is 'reason to believe' you'd moved (the Court of Appeal Judges even said that exact thing in the Carr hearing and they stated that a DVLA vehicle address is merely the starting point, not an assumed address for service). The fact you had appealed months before showed you were someone who was prepared to engage with them. Silence after that strongly suggests you'd moved.

Despite what DCB say, I bet they DIDN'T attach proof of this supposed address trace?!

The authority of Carr MUST be followed and provides binding precedent for:

1. CCJ set aside

2. claim dismissed for want of service within the fixed 4 month limitation (it is expired and cannot be resurrected by a court)

3  Defendant's costs awarded because the case was never allocated to track, so there are costs in the case.

If the judge starts by saying "well this won't take long because {smiles} you are lucky, the C has agreed to your application so I don't need to hear from you" ...BE READY FOR THAT!

IMMEDIATELY politely but VERY clearly say:

"I'm sorry but no, Judge!

I do not accept their draft Order. The claim was improperly served (never served).

Pursuant to the authority this year, of VCS v Carr (Court of Appeal CCJ parking case, which is on all fours with this claim and is a binding judgment) as I am the innocent party in a wrongful CCJ case, the authority provides for:

1. CCJ must be set aside

2. Claim dismissed for want of service within the fixed 4 months limitation (per VCS v Carr the claim is expired and cannot be resurrected by a court), and

3  Defendant's costs awarded in full. The Claimant is incorrect to suggest costs in CCJ set aside cases are dependent upon 'unreasonable conduct'. Not true! The case was never allocated to the small claims (or any) track, so there are costs in the case.

TrippleGGG

@Coupon-mad - you are THE MAN!

Thank you so much!

ChirpyChicken

TrippleGGG said:

@Coupon-mad - you are THE MAN!

Thank you so much!

*Lady.....

TrippleGGG

Ohh. My bad making assumptions. You are THE LADY!!!!