CEL CCJ Set Aside (CPR 13.2, Dead Claim) - Draft WS and DO for Review

dwty67

Hi all,

I'm preparing an N244 application to set aside a CCJ obtained by Civil Enforcement Ltd and would be grateful for a sense check from the regulars before I submit.

Key facts:

• Claimant: Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL)
• CCJ date: 12 June 2026
• Discovered CCJ: 20 August 2026 via credit check
• No claim form, LBC or correspondence ever received
• Claim was served to an old address
• I have lived at two subsequent addresses since leaving that address
• Current address since September 2024
• SAR submitted to CEL
• Applying under CPR 13.2 (mandatory set aside)
• Seeking strike out based on:
  • defective service (CPR 6.9)
  • claim now being "dead" (CPR 7.5 / Vinos etc.)

I've drafted the WS and DO accordingly and would appreciate views on whether:

1. The WS is sufficiently robust for a mandatory CPR 13.2 set aside.
2. The "dead claim" section is strong enough or whether more authority should be included.
3. There's anything obvious I've missed before filing.

One point I'm slightly unsure of: I don't yet know the exact claim issue date, but given the CCJ was entered in June 2026, more than four months have clearly elapsed. Is my wording in paragraphs 25-31 sufficient for now, or should I wait until I have confirmation of the claim issue date from the CCBC?

Also, should I specifically add references to:

• Collier v Williams
• Dubai Financial Group
• BPA Code 24.1(c)
• recent strike-out examples from Norwich/Peterborough/Wakefield

or is the WS stronger if kept relatively concise?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated before I finalise and submit.

Thanks in advance.

WS———

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim Number: [CLAIM NUMBER]

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED

Claimant

-and-

XX

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

I, XX, of [CURRENT ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter.

I make this Witness Statement in support of my application dated [DATE] seeking:

(a) an Order pursuant to CPR 13.2 setting aside the default judgment entered against me on 12 June 2026;

(b) an Order striking out the claim;

(c) an Order that the Claimant reimburse the Defendant's application fee of £321.

BACKGROUND

1. I understand that the Claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited ("CEL"), obtained a default judgment against me on 12 June 2026 relating to an alleged parking charge.

2. I was not aware of the claim, the proceedings, or the judgment until I discovered the CCJ on my credit file on 20 August 2026.

3. Upon discovering the judgment, I acted promptly by contacting the County Court Business Centre to obtain details of the claim and taking steps to prepare this application.

4. I also submitted a Subject Access Request to the Claimant in order to obtain all information held relating to the matter.

5. Had I been aware of the proceedings, I would have responded and defended the claim.

FAILURE OF SERVICE

6. The Claim Form was served at:

[OLD ADDRESS]

7. The Claim Form and subsequent correspondence were served at an address where I no longer resided.

8. Since leaving that address, I have maintained an up-to-date residential record and have lived at two subsequent addresses, most recently at [CURRENT ADDRESS] since September 2024.

9. At the time judgment was entered, I was not residing at the service address and had not done so for a considerable period

10. Had the Claimant undertaken reasonable tracing enquiries prior to commencing proceedings or seeking judgment, my correct address could readily have been identified.

11. In support of this application, I exhibit documentary evidence confirming my residential history and current address.

12. CPR 6.9 requires service on an individual's usual or last known residence.

13. As a result, the Claim Form was never validly served.

14. I never received the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim, Letter Before Claim, judgment, or any other correspondence relating to these proceedings.

15. Because the Claim Form was not served, I was deprived of the opportunity to file an Acknowledgment of Service or Defence.

MANDATORY SET ASIDE

16. CPR 12.3 permits default judgment only where the Defendant has failed to acknowledge service or file a defence within the relevant time.

17. In circumstances where the Claim Form was not validly served, the time for acknowledging service never began to run.

18. Accordingly, the conditions required by CPR 12.3 were not satisfied.

19. Pursuant to CPR 13.2, the Court must therefore set aside the default judgment.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BPA CODE OF PRACTICE

20. The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme.

21. Clause 24.1(c) of the BPA Code of Practice requires operators, before commencing proceedings, to take reasonable endeavours to ensure that a Defendant's contact details are correct where correspondence has gone unanswered.

22. The Claimant failed to undertake those reasonable checks.

23. The cost of a soft trace is minimal and would have identified my correct address.

24. The Claimant's failure to undertake such checks was unreasonable and contrary to both the BPA Code of Practice and CPR 6.9.

THE CLAIM IS DEAD

25. The Defendant submits that, once the judgment is set aside, the claim cannot continue.

26. More than four months have elapsed since the Claim Form was issued.

27. The Claim Form was never validly served during its period of validity.

28. CPR 7.5 requires service within four months of issue.

29. As the Claim Form was not served within that period, it has expired.

30. The Defendant relies upon the judgment in Dubai Financial Group LLC v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71. In that case the Court of Appeal confirmed that where a Defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, they cannot properly be said to be in default. As stated by Lord Justice McCombe:14 15 "If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, either as specified under the rules or by order of the court, I do not see how it can be that a judgment can be entered against him in default of such acknowledgement. He is simply not in default at all."

31. The Defendant further relies on Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that "last known residence" includes not only actual knowledge but also constructive knowledge which could have been acquired through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

32. The authorities in Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc, Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd, Croke v NatWest and Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers confirm that a claimant cannot ordinarily circumvent the service requirements once the validity period of the Claim Form has expired.

33. The Defendant therefore submits that this claim is no longer capable of being resurrected through service of the original Claim Form and should be struck out.

COSTS

34. This application has become necessary solely as a result of the Claimant's failure to use the Defendant's correct address and failure to undertake reasonable checks before litigation.

35. The Defendant has incurred an application fee of £321 in order to remedy a judgment that should never have been entered.

36. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order reimbursement of the application fee by the Claimant.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed: _______________________

XX

Dated: ________________________

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim Number: [CLAIM NUMBER]

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED

Claimant

-and-

XX

Defendant

DRAFT ORDER

UPON reading the Defendant's application dated [DATE] and the accompanying Witness Statement;

AND UPON the Court being satisfied that the Claim Form was not served in accordance with CPR 6.9;

AND UPON the conditions required by CPR 12.3 not being satisfied;

AND UPON CPR 13.2 requiring the Court to set aside the judgment;

AND UPON the Court noting that more than four months have elapsed since issue of the Claim Form and that the Claim Form was not validly served within its period of validity;

AND UPON the Court noting the persuasive appeal authority of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Appeal Ref. E7GM9W44);

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated 12 June 2026 be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2.

2. The claim be struck out.

3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant's application fee of £321 within 14 days of service of this Order.

4. All enforcement of the judgment be stayed immediately.

5. The Claimant shall promptly notify the Registry Trust and all relevant credit reference agencies of the removal of the judgment.

Car1980

VCS v Carr is the authority. Read and include that.

dwty67

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82111528#Comment_82111528

yes this seems relevant so will include that. Any case reference that I should be excluding?

Castle

If the CCJ was entered on 12th June 2026, then the issue date of the claim form is probably less than 4 months ago.

dwty67

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82112107#Comment_82112107

What else can I say to discard the claim? Also when can i expect the hearing date to be if I file the N244 this week?

Le_Kirk

The statement of truth is too short and is out of date.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82112905#Comment_82112905

By the time this gets to a hearing it will be more than 4 months expired, so leave it in.

Applications now cost £321 but you'll be asking for that back as the claim was never allocated to track, so there are costs in the case.

I think your WS is based on a very old one, as we use the word 'expired' these days and your SoT is 5 years out of date and you missed VCS v Carr.

Search the forum for newer ones, with keywords like:

CCJ set aside 13.2 Carr expired

dwty67

here is my updated WS which I have submitted already and paid the fees:

1. The court record shows that the Claimant obtained default judgment against me
on 12 June 2026 in relation to an alleged private parking charge. A copy of the
judgment/court record is exhibited at MK1.
2. I did not receive the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim or judgment because they
were sent to XX.
3. I ceased residing at that address in March 2023. Evidence confirming the end of
my residence there is exhibited at MK2.
4. Between March 2023 and August 2024, I resided at XX.
5. Since 29 September 2024, I have resided continuously at 2XX.
6. Documents confirming my residence at these addresses, including Council Tax
records and other proof of address, are exhibited at MK3 to MK6.
7. I first became aware of the judgment on 20 August 2026 during discussions with
Barclays regarding a remortgage application. I was informed that an adverse
entry had been identified on my credit file, which was subsequently confirmed to
be the judgment that is the subject of this application. Evidence is exhibited at
MK7.
8. Upon discovering the judgment on 20 August 2026, I acted promptly by
contacting the Court on the same day and obtaining details of the claim,
including the Particulars of Claim and the Claimant's details.
9. On the same day, 20 August 2026, I submitted a Subject Access Request to the
Claimant seeking disclosure of all documents and information relating to the
alleged parking charge and these proceedings. A copy of the request and the
acknowledgment of receipt are exhibited at MK8.
10. On 26 August 2026, I completed and submitted this application. I have therefore
acted promptly after discovering the judgment.
Service of the Claim Form
1. At the time the claim was issued and judgment entered, I did not live at the
XX address and had not lived there for more than 3 years.
2. The address used was therefore not my usual residence.
3. I respectfully submit that the Claimant had reason to question whether the
Birmingham address remained current, given the period of time that had elapsed
since I resided there. Reasonable tracing enquiries undertaken immediately prior
to issuing proceedings would have identified my correct address, where I had
been resident since September 2024. The Claimant appears not to have
undertaken such enquiries.
4. CPR 6.9(3) requires a claimant who has reason to believe that an individual no
longer resides at the address proposed for service to take reasonable steps to
ascertain the individual’s current address.
5. In Carr v Vehicle Control Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 713, the Court of Appeal
considered the application of CPR 6.9 where evidence was available from which
the first-instance judge could find that the claimant had reason to believe the
defendant lived elsewhere. I rely on the case for that limited proposition and on
the particular evidence available to CEL in this case. Refer Exhibit MK9.
6. I respectfully submit that CEL had reason to believe that the Birmingham
address was obsolete but did not take reasonable steps to ascertain my current
residence before issuing and serving the claim.
7. Had the Claimant undertaken reasonable tracing enquiries before commencing
proceedings, my current address would likely have been identified. I had been
residing at my current address since September 2024 and my occupancy is
evidenced by council tax records, bank correspondence and electoral roll
records exhibited to this statement.
8. I therefore respectfully submit that the Claim Form was not validly served.
Mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2
1. CPR 12.3 permits default judgment only where the relevant time for
acknowledging service or filing a defence has expired.
2. If the Court finds that the Claim Form was not validly served, the relevant time
for responding did not begin to run and the condition in CPR 12.3 was not
satisfied.
3. The judgment was therefore wrongly entered, and I respectfully submit that it
must be set aside under CPR 13.2.
4. If the Court determines that no valid service occurred and that the period for
service under CPR 7.5 expired without a valid extension, I respectfully request
that the claim also be struck out.
Alternative application under CPR 13.3
1. If, contrary to my primary case, the Court finds the Claim Form was validly
served, I seek discretionary set aside under CPR 13.3.
2. I acted promptly after discovering the judgment, as demonstrated by the
chronology above.
3. I also have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. In summary:
a. I was a bona fide member of the squash club and was entitled to free
parking under the club's parking scheme. My membership commenced
on 18 March 2023 and membership fees were paid by direct debit. The
club's published parking policy states that members park free of charge
once registered. Although I became a member on 18 March 2023, my
membership and vehicle registration were not processed until 18 May
2023. I understand this delay was caused by the club's administration
rather than any failure on my part. I therefore have a real prospect of
defending the claim because I was an authorised user of the premises
who was entitled to park, and any alleged breach arose solely from an
administrative delay outside my control.
b. the Particulars do not adequately identify the contractual term allegedly
breached or the conduct said to constitute the breach;
c. the Claimant is required to prove its authority to contract and litigate in
respect of the land;
d. the Claimant is required to prove the legal basis for the full sum claimed;
and
4. I did not deliberately ignore proceedings. I was unaware of them because the
documents were sent to an address where I no longer resided.
5. In those circumstances, there is also a good reason for the judgment to be set
aside and for me to be permitted to defend the claim.
Particulars of Claim
1. CPR 16.4 requires the Particulars to contain a concise statement of the facts
relied upon.
2. I rely primarily on CPR 16.4 and the actual wording of the Particulars. I also refer
to Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan, appeal reference E7GM9W44, as persuasive but
non-binding authority concerning materially inadequately pleaded parking
Particulars. A copy of the judgment is exhibited at MK10.
3. If the Court does not strike out the claim, I request an order requiring the
Claimant to serve properly particularised Particulars and permitting me to file a
defence thereafter.
Industry code
1. The applicable accredited trade association code is not determinative of valid
service under the CPR.
2. However, insofar as the operative code required reasonable address-verification
steps before litigation, I rely on it as relevant context concerning the Claimant’s
conduct. The applicable provision and proof of the Claimant’s membership are
exhibited at MK11.
Costs and conclusion
1. This application was necessary because proceedings and judgment were sent to
an address where I no longer resided.
2. I have incurred the N244 application fee of £321.
3. I respectfully request that the Court:
a. set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2;
b. alternatively, set it aside under CPR 13.3;
c. strike out the claim if the Court finds that the Claim Form was not validly
served and can no longer be served;
d. alternatively, permit me to file a defence within 14 days;
e. order the Claimant to reimburse the application fee and pay the costs of
this application, or reserve costs; and
f.
make such further directions as the Court considers appropriate.
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: ___
XX
Dated: 26 August 2026
________

dwty67

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82124924#Comment_82124924

Do you know what's the current turn around time from CNBC? I submitted my application on 26 Aug but haven't heard back from them yet.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82143821#Comment_82143821

I think it was something daft like 2 months this summer. Shocking for an urgent CCJ set aside application.

That's a very good example of a CCJ set aside witness statement that we can signpost others to plagiarise! Nice work.

dwty67

I have received a notice of transfer of proceedings from CNBC to Warwick County Court. Is that standard practice - not sure if it's a good thing or a bad!