CCJ sent to my old address - Set aside application and fee payments

cappy182

Hi everybody, and thanks for all your support through this. Just share my experience from my 1st Hearing and hope you will help me with my defence for the second one.

Luckly G24 legal didn't turn up and it was just me and the judge.

To begin with he asked me what was my 'strong and valid' reason that he should consider to give me a second chance to open the case and defend the claim against the parking charge.

(I believe he was referring to this point of my WS '... I also meet the criteria for the CCJ to be set aside on the grounds of 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...')

To be honest I wasn't expecting this question as I built my defence against the CCJ and not the defence against the parking charge.

Honestly, I was quite nervous and scared what to say because it could've compromised my defence. At the end, I've said the truth, meaning I was a member of PureGym at that time and I should've not be charged for overstaying the 2 hours as per member I was entitled up to 3 hours. Plus, I couldn't recall the events on that day, I only know I went with my partner at the gym (not sure who was driving) and as usual I've used the touchpad system to register my number plate, but not sure what went wrong. Finally, I've tried multiple times to contact the gym in order to cancel the parking charge.

The judge seemed quite understanding my point of view but he totally disagree with Carr's case and the failure to deliver the claim at the right address. He talked about a phone call happened between Carr and the parking company that didn't happen in my case as I told them that I didn't receive any calls from DCB Legal before the hearing (even if I realised later that they left me some voicemails that went in my text box). Also, he added that parking companies should not track my address before deliver a claim and the 5 months that elapse from when I moved to the new address till when the sent the claim, were not enough to think somebody moved out (In my opinion, this point was a little bit unfair and I didnt agree to that).

Finally, he said Carr's case wasn't enough in order to struck out my claim and I should come back for another hearing and defend the claim.

He pointed out that G24 and their legals ignored his correspondence and this time I won the case and CCj cancelled.

At that point, I've asked him about my expenses to be paid but he totally disagreed and he told me that will be in the next hearing if I would win. I've tried to insist but he looked annoyed the way I was trying to make a point and he cut me off saying 'You won, what are you trying to get more from it?'. Can't recall the exact words but that was what he meant.

A couple of weeks ago I've received a letter from the court and I should submit a defence within the 28th.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The judgment against **** dated 11 December 2025 be and is hereby set aside under CPR 13.3
2. claimant to file and serve a fully particularised Particulars of Claim by 14/05/2026.
3. Defendant to file and serve a Defence by 28/05/2026.
4. Costs of the application be costs in the case.

DCB Legals sent me their WS by mail and left more voice mails with a pre-registered voice saying that I should ring them to discuss the matter.

I was wondering if I post their WS somebody can help me how to make a defence at this stage and how to proceed from now on.

Coupon-mad

Oh good! He 'reserved' your costs so they are still in the case. You can get those costs if they discontinue now, which is great - because they will!

Isn't it not a WS but a fully particularised Particulars of Claim that you've received now?

Yes please show us the new POC.

cappy182

Yes that's correct, they emailed me the POC.

Hopefully I've still got a chance to win, don't really want to pay this unfair parking charge.

I've tried to copy and paste from the pdf they sent me and has been signed by one of the DBC legal sollicitor.

'These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed in accordance with the Court Order dated 14/05/2026.

Parties

The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private landowners; primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all material times, the Claimant was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association ("ATA") known as the International Parking Community
(*IPC"). The IPC has a Code of Practice (“Code") that its members are expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. The Claimant operates in accordance with the Code
At the material time, the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with registration number (*Vehicle"). The Defendant is the recipient of a Parking
Charge (“Charge") issued by the Claimant.

Background

3. The details of the charge issued to the Defendant are as follows:

Reason For Issue Exceeding The maximum Duration Of Stay Permitted.

Landowner Authority

4. At all material times, the Claimant was contracted by the owner of the Land known as "xxxx Retail Park, xxxx" to manage parking on' the Land and issue Charges to any vehicle that fails to park in accordance with the' .--_ Temms and Conditions of parking.__
TContract & Breach!
5. The claimant was prominently displaying signs on the Land stipulating the Terms and!
Conditions of parking (“Terms") at the time the Charge was issued. The signs formed'
the basis of the Contract with the driver of the Vehicle and contained the following terms 12O MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY

6. The following term made it clear that a 100£ parking charge would be payable in those circumstances
If you breach any of the above terms and conditions of use you agree to pay a 100£
'PARKING CHARGE".

7.i t is the Claimant's position that in choosing to park on the Land in the manner; described herein, the Defendant (driver), accepted the Contract by way of conduct; the parking space being the consideration in the formulation of such Contract.

8. On 19/05/2025 the Vehicle was observed entering the Land at 13:07 and subsequently exiting at 15:24. The duration of stay was 2 hours 17 minutes.

9. It is the Claimant's position that the Defendant's Vehicle remained on the Land in direct breach of the Terms and therefore, the Charge was correctly issued 'Defendant's Liability Following the contravention, in accordance with their capacity of being a member of' the IPC, the Claimant applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of' the Vehicle in order to issue Notices. The Defendant's name and serviceable address
were provided to the Claimant and Notices were issued to the Defendant accordingly.

10.Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA"), the' Claimant has the right to recover the Charge from the 'Keeper'. Paragraph 1 of POFA| clarifies that the Registered Keeper is presumed to be the 'Keeper' unless proveni otherwise. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and is thereforel 3 presumed to be the 'Keeper' for the purposes of POFA.

11. A Notice of Keeper was therefore sent to the Defendant at the address supplied by the DVLA, providing the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or nominate the driver(if it was not them). It is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has complied with the requirements of POFA and so, can pursue the Defendant as the Registered Keeper of The Vehicle.'

Pre-Action Conduct

12.As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited
to send further letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be
resolved, the Claimant instructed my firm to send a Letter of Claim to the Defendant.

1. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the
   Amount Claimed
2. The Claimant seeks the total sum of ￡261.28, broken down as follows
   Charge￡100.00
   Contractual Costs￡70.001
   Interest Court Fee ￡6.28
   Legal Representative Fixed Costs
   ￡35.00
   ￡50.001
3. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states:-
   "If the charge remains unpaid 28 days after day of issue we will instruct our debt.
   recovery agent and further charges will be added to the amount outstanding".
4. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard'
   rate of 8% per annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such,
   I__period as the Court sees fit.
   AND THE CLAIMANTCLAIMS:-
   .--Charge100.00£
   Contractual Costs -￡70£
   Interest- ￡6.28
   Court Fee -￡35.00
   Legal Representative Fixed Costs-_-￡50.00

Coupon-mad

OK so put in the Template defence, plus your costs assessment and cc in DCB Legal.

cappy182

Morning @Coupon-mad,

unfortunately it's been a busy month for me and I didn't have the chance to prepare my defence till today.

As the judge stated in his order, I've got time to submit it by 28/05.

I don't understand if I have to submit a complete WS with proofs or just reply to the POC given by DCB Legal in the last post.

In according to your reply, I've adapted that Template that you mentioned and need to send to the court by tomorrow morning I guess?

Could anybody help me if need to add/change something else? Especially reviewing my point 3, please.


1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof of all allegations contained within the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant’s recollection of events are as set out below and admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC, the Defendant denies that any overstay or breach occurred. The Defendant avers that on the material date, the Defendant and his partner attended PureGym at Spalding Retail Park, both being legitimate gym members and authorised users of the car park. Gym customers were entitled to up to 3 hours of free parking subject to registration of the vehicle registration number on the in-gym touchpad system. Whilst the Defendant cannot now precisely recall the specific events of that day, it was the Defendant’s normal and habitual practice to register the vehicle registration number upon arrival. The Defendant therefore disputes the alleged contravention and puts the Claimant to strict proof that the registration system was functioning correctly on the material date, including proof that no ANPR mismatch, system error, keypad malfunction, or data processing failure occurred.
3.1 As a legitimate PureGym member attending the gym on the material date, the Defendant was entitled to use the car park for up to 3 hours free of charge in accordance with the site terms applicable to gym customers. The alleged duration of 2 hours and 17 minutes was therefore well within the permitted parking period, and no parking charge was properly due.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

11. The Claimant’s claim for interest is disputed, particularly given the exaggerated and inflated nature of the claim and the inclusion of unlawful additional sums.

12. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be struck out or dismissed pursuant to CPR 3.4 on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds, is improperly inflated, and has no real prospect of success.

Coupon-mad

"I don't understand if I have to submit a complete WS with proofs or just reply to the POC given by DCB Legal in the last post."

Neither. Your judge said you must file and serve a Defence

What you've shown us above ISN'T the Template Defence.

Use the current version and head it up with the Claim Number, both parties (not the solicitor firm), the name of the local court and the heading:

AMENDED DEFENCE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED XX/XX/26

(Obviously showing the date of the Order).

And of course at the bottom of the Template Defence, add the date and your signature under the current Statement of Truth … not the old, short version that stupid AI will give you!

And I already said to also do a separate costs assessment now, as the costs of the application and attendance/travel at two hearings are costs in the case, so do keep them front & centre.

cappy182

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82013141#Comment_82013141

Sorry for bein a pain @Coupon-mad I'm a bit a confused what template defence you are referring to. I think I've just copied that one from the newbies guide and added the third point that refers to my specific case.

But I understood what you mean how to edit the start and the statement of truth at the bottom.

Also, the orders says to submit it by 28/05 that means if I've still got time tomorrow morning to complete it and send to the local court? There's no address on there but I believe is the same email I've used it last time before the hearing.

My cost assessment shoudl be rady since the first hearing, just need to review some expenses that the judge wasn't happy to refund.

Finally I've realised that CNBC never gave me the receipt of N224 Application despite I've asked them last month.

Coupon-mad

You didn't copy the Template Defence verbatim. It's an Announcement thread of its own.

Yes same local court email & cc in the C's solicitors. Do it by 3pm tomorrow.

cappy182

I'm sorry but still I'm not understanding this part of the process clearly and what exactly I have to send to the judge by email. Could you please point me out another thread that I can follow?

This template is what I found from my research on this forum but I thought that I have to add my personal facts on point 3, right?

I'm really grateful for your help, I'm desperately trying to submit everything by tomorrow morning.

IN THE COUNTRY COURT AT ******    

BETWEEN:                                                          Claim No: xxxxxx

G24 LTD                               Claimant

-- and -- 

xxxxxxxxx           Defendant 

AMENDED DEFENCE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED XX/05/26

UPON reading the Claimant’s application dated 14/05/2026,

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.
3. Referring to the POC, The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper………
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.
7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))’.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.

Coupon-mad

I can't show you another thread that has recently got past this 'post CCJ set aside' stage because I don't know one off the top of my head. I'd have to search the forum, same as you could do yourself.

Your defence us now looking better but obviously it's a formal submission so it doesn't go into the body of your email by the way. It'll be a signed PDF, an attachment just like your costs assessment list.

Remove this because you aren't at application stage:

"UPON reading the Claimant’s application dated 14/05/2026"

And your paragraphs 2 and 3 should be changed to a proper response to the allegations made in the new POC. I wouldn't copy 2&3 of the Template Defence because there is a specific POC in play now.

Read what they put and respond to the allegation from your POV, in a fresh para 2 and 3. You know your facts, we don't.