+- 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 - b789 - 06-25-2026
@dimegashbag, you were right to pursue the contested application. The court has not only set aside the judgment but has struck out the claim because it was never validly served.
However, because the sealed order contains no paragraph dealing with costs, you should presently assume that no costs were awarded unless the court accidentally omitted that part from the order. If you distinctly remember the judge dealing with the £313 fee, it is worth a prompt email to the court office asking whether the sealed order omitted the costs provision. Otherwise, the substantive case is over and won, but without a costs recovery.
And yes, it is unfair in practical terms. The claimant’s side refused the sensible route, forced a paid contested application, lost on service, and yet the defendant appears to have had to bear the fee. That is exactly why people find this process so unsatisfactory.
At this stage, the main thing is to wait for the CCJ to be removed from the register and your credit file. The court has set the judgment aside, so the entry should be removed, but it is not always immediate. It can take a little time for the Registry Trust and the credit reference agencies to update. You should keep the sealed order safe and check your credit file again after a few weeks.
If the CCJ is still showing after a reasonable period, you can contact the court office and Registry Trust with a copy of the sealed order and ask for confirmation that the cancellation has been processed.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - dimebagslash - 06-25-2026
Ok thanks for the update. I had prepared myself for the loss of the fee and tbh the ccj removal was the most important thing.
Thanks again!
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - b789 - 06-25-2026
@dimebagslash, that is still an excellent result overall. The important point is that the CCJ has definitely been set aside and the claim has been struck out, so the immediate damage has been undone.
On the costs point, although the sealed order does not mention them, can you remember whether the judge said anything at all about the application fee or costs at the hearing? I am making enquiries in case costs were dealt with orally but omitted from the sealed order by mistake, because it is a little unusual for there to be no mention of costs at all where the Defendant has succeeded on both set aside and strike out.
Either way, the main objective has been achieved. Also, there is at least some satisfaction in the fact that this will almost certainly have cost the Claimant far more than they ever hoped to recover, particularly if they instructed an advocate to attend the hearing. By the time they have paid their solicitor, hearing agent and internal costs, they are likely well out of pocket on a claim they have now lost entirely.
For now, the key thing is that the CCJ is gone and the claim is finished. If you do remember any discussion about costs at the hearing, let me know.
RE: Re: Bailiff letter from private parking company with no first letter - b789 - 06-26-2026
@dimebagslash, I have now checked why there was no order as to costs. The answer is that, although the costs request was included in the bundle and draft order, it was not actually raised at the hearing.
The Claimant was never going to raise it, because they had lost and any costs order would certainly have gone against them. However, the court will not usually deal with costs of its own motion in a situation like this unless the issue is specifically raised by one of the parties.
So, although the costs point was before the court in writing, that did not guarantee the judge would deal with it automatically. In a short application hearing, the judge will usually focus on the live issue that actually determines the outcome. In your case, that was whether the claim had ever been validly served. Once the judge found that it had not and struck the claim out, that effectively disposed of the application. If costs were not then specifically asked for orally, they may simply not have been dealt with.
That is why the sealed order is silent on costs. It does not necessarily mean the judge overlooked the bundle. It just means the issue of costs was simply not separately pressed at the point when the order was made.
The important point remains that you won the application, the CCJ has been set aside, and the claim has been struck out.