DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 12, 2025, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ixxy link=topic=7335.msg85254#msg85254
date=1754980169]
What exceptional circumstances? The lack of phone signal and
mobility issues? Not really mitigating circumstances, the
signage clearly says you can pay up to midnight on the day of
parking so there was no time pressure to pay, there was plenty
of opportunity to pay after leaving at your leisure when you had
a phone signal. If it had been a pay on exit car park then there
may have been a valid defence using the disability act to show
the car park setup disadvantaged people with reduced mobility.
[/quote]
Thank you for pointing that out Ixxy. That's an interesting
point about the paying until midnight. I have uploaded the wrong
photo!
That photo was taken a month ago, but on checking my details
from the time I was sent the PCN the signs were different, so
have been renewed. Which could indicate they have been made
aware that payment cannot be made from inside the carpark due to
phone signal issues! See correct photo which doesn't mention
anything about paying until midnight.
#Post#: 85318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 12, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're overthinking this. Make sure you put on the N244 that you
are seeking a set aside AND a strike out. Set aside under CPR
13.2 and CPR 13.3 and strike out under CPR 7.5.
If the strike out is not mentioned on the N244, even though it
is in the draft order, it won't be considered at the time.
The so-called Private Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel (PPSAP),
a self-serving creation of the BPA and IPC, was forced into an
embarrassing amendment to its own Code of Practice just five
months after launch, following public outrage at operators
issuing charges to motorists who had in fact paid in full before
exit but not within an arbitrary and undisclosed time after
arrival. The PPSAP was announced right when the Private Parking
(Code of Practice) Act 2019 was edging closer to implementation.
The Act will replace the BPA/IPC’s self-written codes with a
statutory Code of Practice backed by law, independent oversight,
and sanctions — stripping away much of the current “marking
their own homework” system.
By creating the PPSAP, the trade bodies can say, “Look, we
already have an independent scrutiny panel” — even though it’s
funded and controlled within their own ecosystem. The PPSAP’s
changes — like the February 2025 tweak on late payment before
exit — are essentially pre-emptive concessions to make it look
as if they’re already protecting motorists, when in reality
they’re reacting to reputational and political pressure.
Because your alleged “contravention” was in April 2024, the
updated PPSCoP rule about paying any time before exit wasn’t in
force then — so ParkingEye can argue it’s not retrospectively
binding. However, that doesn’t make it irrelevant. In your
set-aside witness statement, you can still use it persuasively:
[indent]• It shows industry standards have shifted – even the
BPA/IPC now agree that issuing PCNs in situations like yours is
unreasonable.
• It supports an “unfair terms” argument under the Consumer
Rights Act 2015, because if the trade body now says such charges
shouldn’t be issued, it’s evidence the original term was
disproportionately penalising and not transparent.
• It helps on CPR 13.3 “real prospect of defending” – a judge
may see that the current industry position matches your stance,
making your defence more credible.
• It supports mitigation and proportionality – even if a strict
contract term was breached, the fact that the breach is now
exempt under modern rules could influence a judge to find in
your favour.[/indent]
You could add something like this to your WS:
[quote]While the incident in question occurred in April 2024, I
note that on 17 February 2025 the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) was amended by the BPA/IPC’s so-called Private
Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel (PPSAP) to prohibit the
issuing of Parking Charge Notices in circumstances where the
motorist has paid the correct tariff for the entire period
parked before leaving the site, regardless of when payment was
made. This change post-dates my case, but it is directly
relevant for two reasons. First, it is an admission by the
industry itself that the previous practice was unfair,
supporting my argument under CPR 13.3 that I have a real
prospect of defending the claim on the basis of disproportionate
and concealed terms. Second, it reinforces my position under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 that any term purporting to start the
paid period from ANPR entry — without clear and prominent notice
— was not transparent or fair, and is therefore
unenforceable.[/quote]
You will need to check this for your N244 application form:
[quote]N244 – Reasons (Box 3 & 10)
This application is made to set aside the default judgment
entered on 8 April 2025 and to strike out the claim, on the
following grounds:
[indent]1. CPR 13.2 – Mandatory set-aside
[indent]• At the time of purported service (March 2025) I was
resident overseas and had been continuously outside England &
Wales from October 2024 until May 2025.
• The claim was not served at my usual or last known residence
within the meaning of CPR 6.9.
• No permission was sought to serve out of the jurisdiction
under CPR 6.36 and PD 6B.
• Default judgment was therefore wrongly entered contrary to CPR
12.3, triggering the mandatory set-aside requirement of CPR
13.2.[/indent]
2. CPR 13.3 – Fallback discretionary set-aside
[indent]• In the alternative, if the court finds service was
valid, the judgment should be set aside under CPR 13.3 because I
have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
• The Particulars of Claim assert “parking without paying to
park”, which is factually untrue. Documentary evidence proves
that I paid the correct tariff and vacated the site before the
paid-for time expired.
• The Claimant’s pleadings are defective and fail to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by not setting out a concise
statement of facts capable of disclosing a cause of
action.[/indent]
3. CPR 7.5 – Strike-out once judgment is set aside
[indent]• If the judgment is set aside, the claim should then be
struck out because the claim form has expired under CPR 7.5,
having not been validly served within four months of
issue.[/indent]
4. Costs
[indent]• The Claimant ignored reasonable requests to resolve
this matter by consent, thereby increasing costs unnecessarily.
• I will seek recovery of the £313 application fee and my
reasonable attendance costs under CPR
27.14(2)(g).[/indent][/indent][/quote]
Your WS should be something along these lines:
[quote]1. I, [Defendant’s Name], of [overseas address], the
Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:
2. I make this statement in support of my application dated [xx
xxx 2025] to set aside the default judgment entered on 8 April
2025 and to strike out the claim.
3. The matters set out in this statement are within my own
knowledge unless otherwise stated, and where so stated, I
believe them to be true.
4. At the time the claim form was purportedly served in March
2025, I was not resident in England or Wales. I had been
continuously resident at my overseas address since October 2024
and did not return for a visit until May 2025.
5. The address used by the Claimant is a UK property address,
but it was not my usual or last known residence during the
period of purported service. The Claimant made no attempt to
verify my current address before issuing proceedings, contrary
to CPR 6.9(3).
6. No application was made to the court for permission to serve
out of the jurisdiction, as required by CPR 6.36 and Practice
Direction 6B.
7. As the claim was not validly served, default judgment was
wrongly entered under CPR 12.3 and must be set aside under CPR
13.2.
8. In the alternative, if the court finds service was valid, I
respectfully submit that I have a real prospect of successfully
defending the claim.
9. The alleged contravention occurred in April 2024 when I
parked in an underground car park operated by the Claimant while
accompanying my 87-year-old mother to the library. There was no
mobile phone signal underground, meaning payment could not be
made via the parking app until we had exited on foot. The only
pedestrian exit is a steep stairway, and due to my mother’s age
and infirmity this took significantly longer than normal. Once
outside with mobile reception, I immediately paid for a two-hour
stay and we returned to the vehicle and exited the site before
the expiry of the time shown on the payment confirmation.
10. A month later I received a Parking Charge Notice alleging
non-payment. I assumed this was an error and supplied proof of
payment, but the Claimant rejected this. I appealed to POPLA
under the Private Parking Single Appeals Process (PPSAP), which
governs both BPA and IPC members since October 2024. The PPSAP
Code requires that operators consider all mitigating
circumstances, including disability and other protected
characteristics, in line with the Equality Act 2010. My appeal
set out the unavoidable delay caused by my elderly and infirm
mother having to climb the steep stairs to reach an area with
mobile phone reception, and provided proof that the tariff was
paid in full. POPLA rejected the appeal on the basis of a
four-minute “overstay” calculated from the ANPR timestamp on
entry, without addressing the fact that payment could not be
made until reception was reached, that there was no signage
warning that time started from entry rather than parking, and
without considering the reasonable adjustments required by the
PPSAP and the Equality Act.
11. While the incident in question occurred in April 2024, I
note that on 17 February 2025 the Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice was amended by the BPA/IPC’s so-called Private
Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel (PPSAP) to prohibit the
issuing of Parking Charge Notices in circumstances where the
motorist has paid the correct tariff for the entire period
parked before leaving the site, regardless of when payment was
made. This change post-dates my case, but it is directly
relevant for two reasons. First, it is an admission by the
industry itself that the previous practice was unfair,
supporting my argument under CPR 13.3 that I have a real
prospect of defending the claim on the basis of disproportionate
and concealed terms. Second, it reinforces my position under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 that any term purporting to start the
paid period from ANPR entry — without clear and prominent notice
— was not transparent or fair, and is therefore unenforceable.
12. The Particulars of Claim state that the contravention was
“parking without paying to park”. This is untrue. Payment was
made in full for the period parked. Any alleged shortfall arises
solely because the Claimant’s ANPR system starts the clock on
entry, not when parking commences or payment is made. This was
not clearly displayed on site and is therefore an unfair term
under sections 62 and 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
13. The Particulars of Claim also fail to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they do not provide a concise statement of
facts capable of disclosing a valid cause of action.
14. The claim was issued on 10 March 2025. More than four months
have now elapsed without valid service.
15. Under CPR 7.5, a claim form must be served within four
months of issue; failing this, the claim expires and cannot be
continued.
16. If the judgment is set aside, the claim should be struck out
immediately under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as having no reasonable grounds
for bringing it, and/or because it has expired under CPR 7.5.
17. On [date], I invited the Claimant to consent to a set-aside
in order to avoid unnecessary cost and court time.
18. The Claimant refused to engage with this reasonable
proposal, replying only with a generic payment demand and
ignoring the issue of consent.
19. This conduct is contrary to the Overriding Objective in CPR
1.1 and has unnecessarily increased costs. I therefore seek an
order that the Claimant reimburse my £313 application fee and
reasonable hearing attendance costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g),
including my travel costs and necessary hotel accommodation as I
will need to travel from abroad.
20. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that
the court:
[indent](a) Set aside the default judgment dated 8 April 2025
under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3;
(b) Strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or CPR
7.5; and
(c) Order the Claimant to pay my application and hearing
costs.[/indent][/quote]
#Post#: 85373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 12, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is truly amazing information. The biggest thanks. You have
absolutely nailed it, together with every possible area covered
with the appropriate facts and terminology.
With your expert help, I will make some major amendments to my
N244, WS and Draft Order. Then let you see it all before
submitting.
I have given ParkingEye until Friday 15th August to respond to
my email sent morning of 8th August, inviting them to submit a
Consent Order. If there is no response or agreement, I plan to
submit my application this Friday afternoon (15th).
#Post#: 85791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 15, 2025, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I am ready now to summit my N244 and would very much
appreciate it if you could please check that all is ok. :)
I will upload my paperwork without personal details
* Draft Order
* N244 main sections - should I put my overseas address in the
last section? - 'Address for documents to be sent' I will
obviously be adding my email address.
* Witness Statement
Thank you
#Post#: 85815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 15, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve reviewed your N244 application form, witness
statement, and draft order, and from a content and legal
argument perspective, they are strong and well-structured.
Here’s my assessment:
[indent]1. Core Legal Basis
You’ve clearly advanced three interlocking grounds:
[indent]• CPR 13.2 (mandatory set-aside) — Improper
service to a UK address when you were overseas, supported by CPR
6.9(3)/(4), CPR 6.36, and PD 6B arguments. This is the most
powerful basis — if the judge finds service was invalid,
set-aside is automatic and not discretionary.
• CPR 13.3 (discretionary set-aside) — A real
prospect of defending, with detailed factual background (payment
made, disability considerations, Consumer Rights Act, Equality
Act), plus POPLA/PPSAP context.
• CPR 7.5 expiry — If judgment is set aside, claim
should be struck out for being time-expired due to lack of valid
service within four months.
• CPR 3.4(2)(a) — As an alternative strike-out basis
for no reasonable cause of action (bare POC).[/indent]
This three-tiered approach is legally sound.
2. Strengths
Service defect is well-evidenced — Overseas residence,
documentary proof, no permission for service out of
jurisdiction, and Claimant had an active email contact but
didn’t use it.
Recent appellate authority — VCS v Carr is binding and
directly relevant to your facts. You’ve applied it
persuasively to the service defect and expiry arguments.
Defence merits — The payment proof and Equality Act
arguments are credible and fact-specific. Linking this to
Consumer Rights Act transparency obligations strengthens the
proportionality/unfairness point.
Chronology — Clear, documented sequence of events showing
prompt action once aware of the judgment. This addresses the
“promptness” requirement under CPR 13.3.
Costs argument — Framing it under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and
citing unreasonable conduct in refusing a consent order is
legitimate.
3. Points to Tighten or Clarify
CRA & Equality Act interplay — You mention both, but it
may be worth explicitly linking them in a short paragraph:
CRA 2015 → transparency of terms
Equality Act 2010 → duty to make reasonable adjustments,
including extra time for those with disabilities or caring for
disabled persons.
This makes the judge’s job easier in seeing the statutory
framework in one place.
PPSAP amendment relevance — You’ve correctly noted
the change is post-event but shows industry acknowledgment of
unfairness. Be ready to rebut any suggestion this is
“irrelevant” because it’s not retrospective
— emphasise it goes to reasonableness of term at the time,
supporting CRA fairness tests.
Costs wording in draft order — At para. 3 of the draft
order, you’re asking for costs “pursuant to CPR
27.14(2)(g)” and saying “reasonable costs of
attending the hearing.” For consistency, you might want to
also reference the VCS v Carr position that where no track
allocation has occurred, costs can follow the event on an
indemnity basis (your WS does say this, but draft order
doesn’t).
Strike-out after set-aside — You’ve got both CPR
3.4(2)(a) and CPR 7.5 expiry in the draft order. Judges
sometimes prefer to deal with one point. You might strengthen
this by adding: “In the alternative, directions for the
Claimant to re-serve within X days, failing which
strike-out”. That way you’re not seen as asking for
a double-barrelled strike-out without fallback.
Minor factual check — In WS para. 6.2, you say you left
the UK on 13 October 2024 and returned 18 June 2024 — that
should presumably be 2025. Small typo but could confuse the
judge.
4. Overall Opinion
The content and legal argument are strong, especially on the CPR
13.2 service defect and CPR 7.5 expiry.
The witness statement is detailed but remains relevant —
the facts directly support the rules you cite.
The draft order aligns with the application and is realistic for
a DJ to grant.
The case law (VCS v Carr, CEL v Chan, CPMS v Akande) is
well-chosen for mandatory set-aside and defective particulars.
If the judge accepts your CPR 13.2 argument, they must set aside
the judgment, and CPR 7.5 expiry could end the matter entirely
without a re-trial. Your fallback under CPR 13.3 is solid if
service is (wrongly) deemed valid.[/indent]
There is some repetition in the WS that you could streamline
without losing any substance. The most noticeable examples are:
[indent]1. Repeated service defect points
• Paras 4.3–4.9 already set out that you were
overseas, didn’t live at the service address, no
permission to serve out of jurisdiction, and that the claimant
had your email.
• Para 7.2.1–7.2.4 repeats the same points almost
word-for-word, with only the VCS v Carr reference
added.[/indent]
Merge them so the factual narrative (paras 4.x) is concise, and
then the legal analysis (para 7.2) simply cross-refers back
— e.g. “As set out in paras 4.3–4.9
above…”.
[indent]2. Particulars of Claim defect repeated
• Para 5.5 says POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
• Para 7.3.1(b) repeats this as “pleadings are
defective” and lacking concise facts.
• Para 9.3 & 9.4 again repeat this, citing CEL v Chan and
CPMS v Akande.[/indent]
Mention the POC defect once in the factual background, then
again in the legal section with the case law — no need to
restate the defect in the conclusion beyond a short reminder.
[indent]3. Payment made & nature of alleged breach
• Paras 5.1–5.4 set out that you paid, ANPR measures
from entry, signage didn’t say so, and your mother’s
disability delayed payment.
• Paras 7.3.1(a)–(d) essentially restate those
points.
• Para 7.4 says again “POC state parking without
payment” and repeats that you have payment
evidence.[/indent]
Keep the detailed factual narrative in section 5, then in 7.3.1
summarise it in one sentence as “As set out in paras
5.1–5.4, payment was made in full, but the Claimant
alleges non-payment solely because their ANPR clock runs from
entry without notice — a term that is both unfair and
disproportionate given the circumstances.”
[indent]4. Case law repetition
• VCS v Carr is mentioned in paras 7.2.4,
8.1.1–8.1.3, and 9.2.
• CEL v Chan appears in 8.1.4–8.1.6 and again in
9.3–9.4.[/indent]
Keep the first mention with the legal test, then in the
conclusion simply refer to “as per VCS v Carr and CEL v
Chan” rather than summarising them again.
A tighter WS makes it easier for the judge to follow the flow
— and since DJs skim-read, they’ll appreciate
concise, non-redundant points. It also reduces the risk of the
judge thinking you’re “padding” the
application.
Here’s a suggested streamlined, judge-friendly version of
your witness statement. It keeps every legal and factual point
from your current WS but removes the repeated elements, groups
related arguments together, and makes it easier for a District
Judge to follow in one read. It is also better to just use
integer sequential paragraph numbering:
[quote]1. I am [NAME], of [Overseas address], the Defendant.
This statement supports my application dated [xx xxx 2025] to:
(a) set aside the default judgment entered on 8 April 2025;
(b) strike out the claim; and
(c) order the Claimant to pay my costs, including the £313
application fee and my reasonable hearing expenses.
2. The facts in this statement are within my own knowledge
unless otherwise stated.
Background and service defect
3. The Claimant obtained default judgment on 8 April 2025 for an
alleged parking charge from 5 April 2024.
4. I have lived overseas with my husband since 2003. At the time
of purported service (10 March 2025) I was continuously resident
abroad, having left the UK on 13 October 2024 and not returning
until 18 June 2025, as evidenced by my [Country] Resident ID and
Company Letter (Appendix E) and my travel records (Appendix B).
5. The claim form was served at a UK address I visit rarely and
rent out, which was not my “usual or last known
residence” under CPR 6.9. The Claimant had my active email
(Appendix D) used for earlier PCN correspondence, but made no
attempt to verify my current address or use alternative service
under CPR 6.9(4).
6. No application was made to serve out of the jurisdiction
under CPR 6.36 and PD 6B. The claim form has therefore never
been validly served.
7. These facts mirror VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of
Appeal, 4 March 2025), where failure to take reasonable steps to
ensure effective service rendered the judgment void.
Factual basis of defence
8. On 5 April 2024 I parked in the Claimant’s underground
car park while assisting my 86-year-old mother, who has dementia
and mobility issues, to attend the library.
9. The location has no mobile reception underground, so payment
via the parking app was impossible until we had exited on foot.
The only pedestrian exit is a steep stairway; assisting my
mother to climb it took significant time. Once outside, I
immediately paid for two hours’ parking and we returned to
the car. We left before the paid-for time expired. Proof of
payment is attached at Appendix A.
10. The PCN was issued despite full payment being made. The
alleged “overstay” arises solely because the
Claimant’s ANPR system times from vehicle entry, not the
point of parking or payment. This was not stated clearly on
signage.
11. The Equality Act 2010 recognises dementia as a disability
and requires reasonable adjustments, such as allowing additional
time for disabled persons or carers to reach payment facilities.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) also
requires such consideration. A medical report confirming her
diagnosis is at Appendix F
12. The PPSCoP was amended on 17 February 2025 to prohibit PCNs
where the correct tariff has been paid before leaving,
regardless of when payment was made. Although post-dating my
case, this change evidences the industry’s own recognition
that such charges are unfair, supporting my arguments under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 that the timing term was neither
transparent nor fair.
Defects in the Particulars of Claim
13. The Particulars allege “parking without paying to
park” — a statement that is factually untrue. They
also fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16 para 7.5 by
not identifying the specific conduct alleged to constitute the
breach.
14. In CEL v Chan (Luton CC, 2023) and CPMS v Akande, parking
claims were struck out for similar failures.
Promptness and conduct
15. I discovered the judgment only on 30 June 2025 during a
visit to the UK. I immediately contacted CNBC for the N244 form
and sought to resolve the matter without court intervention.
16. On 22 July 2025 and again on 8 August 2025, I invited the
Claimant to agree a consent order to set aside judgment at no
cost to the court. The Claimant refused, responding only with
payment demands. This conduct is contrary to the Overriding
Objective and has caused unnecessary cost. Emails to and from
the Claimant are at Appendix D. CNBC’s email with N244
instructions is at Appendix C.
Legal basis for application
17. Under CPR 13.2, the court must set aside a default judgment
if service was not effected in accordance with CPR 6.9. Here:
(a) service was to an address that was not my usual or last
known residence;
(b) no reasonable steps were taken to ascertain my current
address;
(c) no permission was sought for service out of jurisdiction;
and
(d) there was no valid service within CPR 7.5’s
four-month limit.
18. Alternatively, under CPR 13.3 I have a real prospect of
defending the claim:
• full payment was made for the period parked;
• signage failed the CRA 2015 transparency test; and
• no reasonable adjustments were made under the Equality
Act 2010.
19. The claim form is now expired under CPR 7.5. If the judgment
is set aside, the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
and/or CPR 7.5.
Costs
20. No track allocation has occurred, so the fixed small-claims
costs regime does not apply. Consistent with VCS v Carr, I seek
costs on the indemnity basis under CPR 44.3, including:
• the £313 application fee; and
• my reasonable travel and accommodation costs for
attending the hearing from overseas.
Conclusion
21. For the reasons above, I respectfully ask the court to:
(a) set aside the default judgment dated 8 April 2025;
(b) strike out the claim as expired or disclosing no
reasonable grounds; and
(c) order the Claimant to pay my costs on the indemnity
basis.[/quote]
Ideally, you should reference the "appendixes" as "exhibits" and
you should label each one in the format of "Exhibit AA-01" where
"AA" is your initials. Also, it is best if you number them in
the order they are first referred to in your WS.
Also, here is here’s a revised draft order that aligns
with the streamlined WS and clearly builds in the indemnity
costs position. It keeps the key relief you’re seeking,
but sets it out in the order most judges prefer:
[quote]
[center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
[right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
[center]BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant
[hr]
DRAFT ORDER[/center]
UPON reading the Defendant’s application dated [xx xxx
2025] and the annexed witness statement;
AND UPON it appearing that the default judgment dated 8 April
2025 was wrongly entered because the claim form was not validly
served at the Defendant’s usual or last known residence,
the Defendant being resident overseas at all material times;
AND UPON it appearing that no application was made for
permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, and that more than
four months have elapsed since the issue of proceedings on 10
March 2025 without valid service, contrary to CPR 7.5;
AND UPON the Particulars of Claim failing to comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a) by not setting out a concise statement of facts
capable of disclosing a cause of action;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment dated 8 April 2025 is set aside pursuant
to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.
2. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as
disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or
because the claim form has expired under CPR 7.5 without valid
service.
3. Costs:
[indent](a) The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs
of this application, including the £313 court fee and the
Defendant’s reasonable travel and accommodation expenses
for attending the hearing from overseas.
(b) Such costs shall be assessed on the indemnity basis pursuant
to CPR 44.3, there having been no track allocation and the
Claimant having acted unreasonably in refusing to consent to the
set-aside despite clear evidence of defective service.[/indent]
4. Stay of enforcement: All enforcement of the judgment is
stayed pending the outcome of this application.[/center]
[/quote]
This structure makes your application easier for a DJ to follow:
[indent]•Grounds are summarised in the recitals.
• Relief is in clear numbered paragraphs.
• Costs basis is explicitly tied to CPR 44.3 and
unreasonable conduct, consistent with VCS v Carr.[/indent]
#Post#: 85941--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 16, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for your excellent assessment and advice, I have
made the amendments to my WS and Draft Order, with mostly your
wording. I think I may need to amend the wording in No3 of the
N244. I assume it should reflect what is now in the Draft Order?
Thank you
#Post#: 85944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 16, 2025, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Keep N244 wording consistent with the draft order by trimming it
to the same structure:
[indent]• Set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 and/or
CPR 13.3.
• Strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or CPR 7.5.
• Costs to the Defendant, including the £313 fee and reasonable
travel/accommodation, on the indemnity basis under CPR
44.3.[/indent]
You don’t need to cite VCS v Carr or CEL v Chan in the N244 —
case law goes in your WS. The N244 should stay short and focused
on “the order sought”.
#Post#: 85946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 16, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the wording in the draft order, it comes down to
strategy and how confident you are in the CPR 7.5 “expired
claim” point.
Why you might remove the “alternative re-service” wording
CPR 7.5 is strict: if the claim form wasn’t served within 4
months, the claim is dead. The court has no discretion to extend
its life after expiry (Vinos v Marks & Spencer [2001] and
reaffirmed in VCS v Carr CoA 2025).
If you give the judge an “alternative” option, you risk the
court taking the softer route (ordering re-service) instead of
applying the hard strike-out you’re entitled to.
Since your witness statement relies heavily on Carr, your
primary position should be: this claim cannot be revived; it
must be struck out.
Why you might keep the “alternative” wording
Some District Judges are cautious and dislike striking out at a
set-aside stage, especially if they think the claimant might
re-issue anyway. Including the “alternative” gives the judge a
middle ground if they are unwilling to grant an outright
strike-out.
It can sometimes make you look more “reasonable” — i.e. you’re
not just trying to shut the case down, but giving the claimant
one last chance to comply.
My opinion
Given, you have VCS v Carr (binding CoA) directly on point, more
than 4 months have elapsed since issue and the claim was never
validly served, I would remove the “alternative” wording. It
dilutes your strongest point and could undermine the
expired-claim argument.
#Post#: 85947--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 16, 2025, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve checked your revised WS, and it’s in very good shape.
Here’s my assessment:
Minor points to tweak
Exhibit numbering consistency
Para 5: “Exhibit RT-03” covers both “active email used
previously” and later “emails to/from Claimant” (para 16).
That’s fine, but you might note in your exhibit list:
[indent]• RT-03 – Emails to/from Claimant (including proof of
use of Defendant’s current email).[/indent]
Authority citations
Para 7 cites VCS v Carr — you may want to add “binding Court of
Appeal authority” to make its weight clear.
Para 14 cites CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande — you could tighten
by adding:
[indent]“… which are persuasive County Court
authorities.”[/indent]
Consumer Rights Act reference (para 18, bullet 2)
Currently “signage failed the CRA 2015 transparency test”. To be
sharper:
[indent]“… signage failed the Consumer Rights Act 2015
requirement for transparency and fairness of terms (sections 62
& 68).”[/indent]
Promptness (para 15)
Might be worth explicitly saying:
[indent]“I applied promptly, within weeks of first becoming
aware of the judgment.”[/indent]
This is a common judicial tick-box under CPR 13.3.
The WS is ready to file. It’s concise, fully evidenced, and
judge-friendly. Just make those 3–4 tiny refinements (exhibit
description, emphasise CoA vs CC weight, CRA sections, and add
one sentence on promptness).
#Post#: 86249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 19, 2025, 2:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just another big thank you 'b789' for your input and
explanations regarding my CCJ case. And others on this thread
who made helpful comments. I couldn't have done it without you.
I submitted my N244 application yesterday and will update you
again when I have more news.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page