+- Private Parking Ticket Legal Advice (PPTLA) (https://pptla.uk)
+-- Forum: Legal advice forum (https://pptla.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Parking Charge Notices forum (https://pptla.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter (/showthread.php?tid=30)
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 04-02-2026
No the notice of hearing also had the original application notice included too
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - b789 - 04-02-2026
That's OK. You are all set for the set aside hearing.
On the date of the hearing, arrive early enough to get through security and let the usher know you have arrived. If DCB Legal send an advocate, don't enter into any discussion with them about the case. They will usually try and intimidate you by saying you have no chance or whatever. Politely tell then that you do not wish to discuss the case her and you will let the judge decide on the facts.
Just in case you are not familiar with how these proceedings are held, here is a short video that explains what happens on the day:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
Remember, this is a civil matter over an alleged disputed debt. It is not a criminal matter.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 04-06-2026
Wonderful, thank you so much for the advice and fingers crossed!
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-01-2026
today i received the following email...
Morgan Falconer <Morgan@dcblegal.co.uk>
Attachments
10:08 (4 hours ago)
to me
Dear James Mcgrother,
We act for the Claimant.
Please find attached the Claimant's Submissions and Draft Order for the hearing on 8th June 2026 at 12:00.
We confirm it has been filed with the Court.
Kind Regards,
Morgan Falconer
DCB Legal Ltd
the attached document is here...
Dear Sirs
Elite Car Parking Management Limited
-v-
James Mcgrother
Claim Number: M8KF60F5
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 04/12/2025 and note the content.
The Defendant seeks for the Judgment to be set aside on the basis they did not receive the
Claim Form. It ought to be noted that the Defendant has failed to provide any supporting
evidence to confirm when they moved from their previous address.
Upon review, 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. This trace result provided the Claimant with knowledge of the Defendant’s address,
which the Claim Form was subsequently served. It is the Claimant’s position that although
the Claim Form was served correctly, it is more than likely than not that the Defendant did
not receive the Claim Form and was therefore unable to defend.
It ought to be noted, the Defendant does not deny receiving the initial Parking Charge. For
the avoidance of doubt, Notices were sent to the address the DVLA confirmed was that of
the Registered Keeper. It is the Defendant’s responsibility and legal obligation to ensure that
the DVLA are kept up to date at all times. The Notices afforded the Defendant opportunity to
make payment, appeal the Parking Charge or transfer liability, which they failed to do. It is
respectfully submitted that the Defendant was correctly put on notice of the Parking Charge
yet failed to respond or make payment. Respectfully, if the Defendant had any doubt
regarding their liability, they would have made a greater effort to communicate the same.
It is noted that the Defendant submits they made payment in relation to the wrong Vehicle
registration number on the material date. It is neither confirmed nor denied as no supporting
evidence has been provided to confirm the same. In any event, the Signs on the Land clearly
outlined the Terms of parking and the Defendant was on notice upon entering the Land. The
DCBLegal/LH/002/0419
Direct House, Greenwood
Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn,
Cheshire, WA7 1UG
E: info@dcblegal.co.uk
T: 0203 838 7038
DX: 23457 Runcorn
DCB Legal Ltd is a limited company registered in England and Wales with number 10633864 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority under SRA registration number 638321. ICO Reg: ZA279934. V.A.T Reg. No: 281 2789 78
Signs clearly outlined that all Vehicle’s must register upon arrival via payment machines or
approved cashless provider. It is the Claimant’s position that the Driver failed to adhere to
the Terms, as they hold no valid record of payment made in relation to the Defendant’s
Vehicle registration (“YD19VPA”) on the material date, thus breaching the Contract. It is the
Claimant’s position that the Parking Charge was issued correctly, and the Defendant
remains liable for the same.
In view of the above, the Claimant has decided to take an economical approach to the
matter in consideration of CPR 1.1 and to assist the Court in achieving its overriding
objective. As such, we would be grateful if the Court would place the attached Draft Order on
the Court file in readiness of the Hearing listed on 08/06/2026.
In the event that the Defendant 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. A trace was conducted to ensure that the Claim Form was served to the
Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9(3) – the Claimant has therefore
followed the correct process and had no reason to believe that the Defendant would not
have received the Claim Form.
Pursuant to CPR 27.14, the Defendant is not entitled to costs incurred where the matter has
been allocated to the Small Claims Track. If the matter had proceeded, it is reasonable to
assume that the Claim would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track, given the
complexity and balance of the case.
Yours faithfully
DCB Legal Limited
The draft order attached is here...
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
CLAIM NUMBER: M8KF60F5
BETWEEN:-
ELITE CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITED
CLAIMANT
AND
JAMES MCGROTHER
DEFENDANT
DRAFT ORDER
Before District Judge ___________________________
UPON considering the Defendant’s application dated 04/12/2025;
AND UPON the Claimant accepting that although the Claim was served at the Defendant’s last known address
pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not receive the Claim Form and was therefore unable to respond to the
Claim;
AND UPON the above constituting “some other good reason” for Judgment to be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
i. The Judgment entered herein on the 25/04/2025 be and is hereby set aside.
ii. It is recorded that a request for cancellation of the judgment has been sent to Registry Trust Limited.
iii. The Defendant is to file and serve a Defence within 14 days;
iv. In default of the above, the Claimant has permission to request for Judgment; and
v. There be no order as to costs.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - b789 - 06-01-2026
Do not agree to that draft order.
It is designed to give them the one thing they can no longer sensibly resist, namely removal of the CCJ, while preserving everything else in their favour.
The defects are obvious.
First, they are trying to force the set-aside into CPR 13.3 only. Their draft order expressly records that service was valid under CPR 6.9 and that the judgment is only being set aside because there is “some other good reason”. That matters because CPR 13.2 is mandatory where default judgment was wrongly entered, whereas CPR 13.3 is discretionary and does not give you the same foundation for strike-out on the basis of invalid service. CPR 13.2 and 13.3 are distinct routes.
Second, they are trying to avoid the CPR 7.5 issue altogether. Their order says nothing about the claim form never having been validly served within four months. Instead, they want the claim revived, a defence filed within 14 days, and a route back to judgment if that is not done. CPR 7.5 requires the claimant to complete the relevant step for service within four months of issue, and CPR 7.6 governs extensions. If service was not validly effected within that period, that is a separate issue the court can and should deal with.
Third, the costs point in their letter is weak. They say CPR 27.14 means the defendant is not entitled to costs because the claim would have been allocated to the small claims track. That is not a complete or accurate statement of the rules. CPR 27.14 applies to cases which have been allocated to the small claims track, and it expressly cross-refers to rule 46.13 for costs orders made before allocation. Their point is therefore overstated. A costs order on an interim application before allocation is not barred simply by saying “small claims”.
Fourth, their “pre-issue trace” point currently looks unproved. In the letter they assert that a trace was conducted and that the claim form was then served at the address identified by the trace. If so, they should exhibit the trace result, identify its date, and explain why that source was reliable despite the complete lack of response to the prior correspondence. On what you have shown me, they have not done that. At present it is only an assertion.
Fifth, their own wording is internally awkward. They say the claim form was correctly served and that they complied with CPR 6.9(3), but also say it is more likely than not that the defendant did not receive it. That is not a concession on invalid service, but it does undermine the practical fairness of their position. It also sits uncomfortably with their attempt to deny costs altogether.
Your position should now be:
The court can set the judgment aside, but only on the correct basis. The primary basis remains CPR 13.2 because the claimant did not validly serve the claim form. In the alternative only, CPR 13.3 applies. If the court accepts invalid service, the court should then go on to deal with the CPR 7.5 point and strike out or dismiss the claim because it was not validly served within four months. The defendant should also seek the application fee and such further costs as the court thinks fit, and should not consent to an order recording valid service or waiving costs.
What I would do next is send a short reply to DCB Legal and take the same point to the hearing.
A suitable reply would be:
Quote:Subject: Claim No. M8KF60F5
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your email and attachments.
I do not agree to the draft order proposed by the Claimant.
The Defendant’s application is put primarily under CPR 13.2 on the basis that the default judgment was wrongly entered following invalid service. In the alternative only, the Defendant relies on CPR 13.3.
The Claimant’s proposed draft order seeks to record that the claim was validly served pursuant to CPR 6.9 and to dispose of the application solely under CPR 13.3. That is not accepted.
Further, the proposed draft order makes no provision for the Defendant’s application for strike out following set aside on the basis that the claim form was not validly served within the four-month period required by CPR 7.5, nor does it address the Defendant’s application for costs.
If the Claimant intends to rely on an alleged pre-issue trace in support of its CPR 6.9 position, then the Defendant requires strict proof by way of disclosure of the trace result, including its date and the source relied upon.
The Defendant will attend the hearing and invite the Court to determine the application in the terms sought by the Defendant, not in the terms set out in the Claimant’s draft order.
Yours faithfully,
James McGrother
Email that to DCB Legal and CC yourself.
For the hearing itself, your simple structure is:
- I do not oppose set-aside, but I oppose the claimant’s basis for it.
- The correct primary route is CPR 13.2, not just CPR 13.3.
- The claimant is trying to smuggle in a finding of valid service without proving it.
- If service was invalid, the court should then address CPR 7.5.
- The claimant’s no-costs position is wrong because 27.14 is not the whole story before allocation.
One other point: their letter says you failed to provide evidence of when you moved. If that evidence exists and has not already been exhibited, it should be taken to the hearing or filed now. That means tenancy agreement, council tax, utility bill, driving licence update, V5C update, anything with dates. That point is easily cured and should not be left hanging.
Use this as a short further supplemental witness statement to exhibit the move/address evidence only.
Quote:IN THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Claim No. M8KF60F5
Between:ELITE CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT LIMITEDClaimant-and-JAMES MCGROTHERDefendant
[b]FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT[/b]
1. I am the Defendant and I make this further supplemental witness statement in support of my application dated 04/12/2025.
2. This statement is made further to my earlier witness statement and supplemental witness statement already filed.
3. The Claimant’s solicitors have asserted that I have failed to provide supporting evidence confirming when I moved from my previous address. I therefore produce that evidence now.
4. I moved from 194a Highamhill Road, E17 5RQ in January 2025 to my current address, [current address].
5. Exhibited to this witness statement at [JM1] is a copy of [tenancy agreement / completion statement / council tax bill / utility bill], which confirms my move to my current address in January 2025.
6. Exhibited at [JM2] is a copy of my updated V5C showing my current address.
7. Exhibited at [JM3] is a copy of my updated driving licence showing my current address.
8. These documents support my evidence that, by the time the claim was issued and purportedly served in April 2025, I no longer resided at 194a Highamhill Road.
9. I rely on those documents in support of my case that the claim form was not validly served at my usual or current address and that the default judgment was wrongly entered.
10. Save as set out above, I rely on my earlier witness statement and supplemental witness statement already filed.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this further Supplemental 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: James McGrother
Dated: [Date]
That needs to be emailed immediately to the court, DCB Legal and CC yourself. Make sure you take 3 copies of it with you to the hearing.
If there is no single document proving the exact move date, amend the exhibit paragraph to say:
Quote:Exhibited to this witness statement at [JM1] is a copy of [document], which supports my evidence that I had moved to my current address by January 2025.
And if there is evidence showing when the DVLA updates were made, add this paragraph:
Quote:Exhibited at [JM4] is a copy of [document], which supports my evidence that I updated my address details promptly after moving.
You will also want a very short covering email when sending it.
FYI, the V5C usually shows a “Doc. Ref.” date at the bottom of page 2, and that is commonly used as evidence of when the DVLA last processed an update to that V5C.
It is not necessarily the date the keeper submitted the change, but it is strong evidence of when the DVLA updated the record.
So if the V5C shows a Doc. Ref. date before the claim was issued in April 2025, that is helpful.
Two points though. First, it shows when the V5C record was updated, not by itself the exact date you moved.
Second, it is better if you can pair it with something else showing occupation of the new address around January 2025, such as a tenancy agreement, council tax bill, utility bill, or similar.
So the V5C is good evidence, but ideally not the only evidence.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-04-2026
great - i did do all of that that day - thanks!
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-11-2026
Just FYI i won the case on monday and im utterly grateful.
It came down to the date on my drivers licence as proof of address update and the fact that the claimant used my old address.
Judge said he was awarding set aside and strike out of ticket/claim.
He didnt mention anything about costs but Id assume he will use our draft order since he found in our favour.
Im just waiting for a letter of confirmation but I also wanted to say thank you and I'll be making a donation too.
Jim
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - b789 - 06-11-2026
@dimebagslash, that's fantastic news. Not unexpected of course, but always a relief when dealing with "judge bingo". Also, good news that not only was the CCJ set aside but the claim was also thrown out.
Can you please give a bit more detail on what actually happened on the day. Did the claimants representative try to chat with you before the hearing? What was the judges demeanour. What was said by whoever.
What exactly did the judge say about costs? Do not assume anything yet about costs until you see the sealed order. If the order includes the application fee or other costs, then that is dealt with. If it is silent on costs, then the order will need to be read as drawn.
For now, the main thing is to wait for the sealed order and check the exact wording. Once it arrives, show it and I can confirm precisely where matters stand.
As I noted early on, this is one of the very rare instances that a DCB Legal issued claim actually reaches a hearing. However, as is almost always the case with these bulk litigation firms, they are invariably incompetent and are usually defeated if the claim actually reaches a hearing stage, which is why they usually discontinue before.
Once again, well done for persevering and I hope it was a valuable life lesson on how to stand up for your rights and not to fear the court system, for these types of disputes.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-11-2026
Yeha no problem.
The firts thing is that i was 30 minutes late as I arrived at the wrong court. This was error on my part caused by a hectic few days after some really bad family news on friday. I read the wrong court letter.
I arrived at the right court, shook hands with the solictor for DCB and we went straight in. She was quite quiet and tbh she was quite nice.
I apologised to the judge who seemed totally unbothered and got right down to business.
He said you both agree on the set aside but you want the case struck out (I mentioned and costs covered here I think). He said very well what proof do you have - I dont see any evidence.
I mentioned the JM1-5 exhibits which it turns out I had also sent to the wrong court too (Edmonton rather than Clerkenwell & Shoreditch). I'd printed it all out and brought 3 copies too but he said that I couldnt use them without prior submission. I said that they had definitly been emailed to the claimant.
In the end he asked how can you prove that you changed your address and what date - I said I had a print out of the drivers licence with the date - he didnt realise that contained the date and took the print out i had with me.
After that he turned to the claimant and asked what the address trace they referred to actually was and she couldnt answer. He warned her not to introduce new evidence and then got fed up with her stumbling and turned to me and said I'm going to strike this out as the driving licence shows that this man changed his address at the earliest opportunity and that you sent the claim against the old address even though the dvla had the new address.
He said he didnt believe for a second that I didnt receive the original ticket and that I wouldnt have a leg to stand on if they had served the claim against the right address for the court proceedings. Although he did also say that he appreciated my honesty with admitting that I got the wrong car when i paid for the parking and admitted that in my later witness statement.
I didnt ask about costs at this time as I didnt want to upset him or ask a silly question and he seemed quite cross and eager to get finished. I know thats silly but it's quite a strange experience all in all.
Hope that helps give a bit of insight.
Yes I learned a lot although Im not particularly keen to repeat the experience any time soon ha
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-25-2026
Here is the order that was sent to me through the post. There isnt any mention of costs so i assume that the judge has decided not to award me the costs from the claimant?
is there anything i should do at this point or will the CCj disappear off my credit report soon?
Thanks again
General form of judgment or order copy.pdf (Size: 149.48 KB / Downloads: 3)