06-01-2026, 02:51 PM
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:
Email that to DCB Legal and CC yourself.
For the hearing itself, your simple structure is:
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.
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:
And if there is evidence showing when the DVLA updates were made, add this paragraph:
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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
