You will need send the following two documents as PDF attachments in an email to the court at enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and also CC the claimant at legal@ce-service.co.uk and also yourself. Include the following in the subject field of the email and the rest in the body:
Subject: Croydon County Court – Claim H3GM8008 – Civil Enforcement Ltd v Baruja – Clarification under CPR 3.3(5) and Defence
Dear Court,
Please find attached the Defendant’s clarification under CPR 3.3(5), together with a fallback Defence filed in compliance with the Order dated 15 July 2025.
Yours faithfully,
Marcos Benito Baruja
Now include the following letter and the defence that follows:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM8008
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
Marcos Benito Baruja
Defendant
CLARIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO ORDER DATED 15 JULY 2025
To: District Judge Rowland
County Court at Croydon
Altyre Road
Croydon
CR9 5AB
Dear District Judge Rowland,
I write in response to the Order dated 15 July 2025, made of the court’s own initiative under CPR 3.3, which states:
“Upon the Defence appearing to be an application and not, in fact, a Defence...”
The Defendant respectfully clarifies that the document filed on 26 July 2025 was a fully pleaded Defence, compliant with CPR 15 and CPR 16.5. It addressed both jurisdictional and substantive defects in the claim, including:
- The failure to serve the claim form within 4 months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
- The absence of any application for extension under CPR 7.6(3);
- The resulting lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
- The failure of the Particulars of Claim to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and Practice Direction 16, disclosing no cause of action.
The Defence also invited the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c), and included a draft order to that effect. This was not an application, but a procedural invitation for the court to exercise its powers of its own initiative, as permitted under Practice Direction 3A and the overriding objective.
The phrase in the Order — “Upon the Defence appearing to be an application and not, in fact, a Defence...” — reflects a category error. The Civil Procedure Rules do not require a defence to be passive or deferential. A defence can — and should — assert strike-out grounds, especially where the claim is void or incoherent. This is consistent with the overriding objective and the court’s discretion under CPR 3.4.
The Defendant respectfully submits that no further Defence is required to a claim that is:
- Expired and unserved within the permitted timeframe;
- Incoherent and legally defective;
- Unsupported by any pleaded contractual terms or identified breach.
Accordingly, the Defendant invites the court to reconsider the Order dated 15 July 2025 and to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c).
This clarification is submitted pursuant to CPR 3.3(5) and is copied to the Claimant.
Yours faithfully,
Marcos Benito Baruja
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Clarification 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: Marcos Benito Baruja
Date: 28 July 2025
The defence:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM8008
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
Marcos Benito Baruja
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration GJ60PEO.
2. The Defendant denies liability for the sums claimed or any amount at all.
3. The Defendant asserts that the claim is void, having not been served within the time permitted by CPR 7.5. The claim form was issued on 14 May 2021. In accordance with CPR 7.5(1), the deadline for service was 14 September 2021. No valid service ever took place, and no extension under CPR 7.6 was sought or granted.
4. The County Court has already set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2, accepting that no valid service occurred. Accordingly, the claim form expired unserved and cannot now be revived. In accordance with Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the court has no jurisdiction to try this claim.
5. Separately, and without prejudice to the above, the Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). They disclose no facts capable of founding a cause of action. No contractual terms are pleaded. No breach is identified. No legal basis is set out for the sums claimed.
6. The Defendant is therefore unable to respond to any specific allegations, as none are properly pleaded.
7. This Defence is filed solely to comply with the Court’s order of 15 July 2025. It is not a concession that the claim is valid or that further pleadings would be appropriate. The Defendant will oppose any attempt to amend or re-serve the claim form, which is no longer extant in law.
8. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c), on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds and constitutes an abuse of process.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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: Marcos Benito Baruja
Date: 28 July 2025
Do this today or tomorrow.
OK. Do you have the email address CE used to send you the SAR response? Please show it to us.
Have CE paid your £300 costs order yet?
I suggest that you do the following TODAY. You post the defence and draft order, repeated below, FIRST CLASS and you do so at a Post Office and get a free 'Proof of Posting' certificate. You address is to Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF. DO NOT leave this until tomorrow or after the weekend. You MUST get a proof of posting certificate dated today.
You also email the defence and draft order to the court at enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.ukand, if you have valid email address for CE, CC it to that email address and also CC yourself.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Cicil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration GJ60PEO.
2. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the sums claimed or any amount at all.
3. The Defendant was unaware of this claim until receiving a letter dated 13 October 2024 from the Claimant, informing them of a County Court Judgment entered in default on 15 June 2021. The Defendant applied to set aside that judgment on the grounds of defective service.
4. On 3 June 2025, the County Court granted the Defendant’s application and set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2. This confirms that no valid service of the claim form ever took place.
5. The Claimant issued the claim on 14 May 2021. In accordance with CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served on the Defendant within 4 calendar months of the date of issue — i.e. by 14 September 2021.
6. It is now an accepted fact, as recognised by the Court in setting aside judgment under CPR 13.2, that the claim form was never served within that 4-month period. No application to extend time for service was made within those 4 months. Therefore, the claim form expired and cannot now be revived.
7. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the Court of Appeal confirmed that failure to comply with CPR 7.5 by serving a claim form within the permitted period is fatal to the claim. The court has no power to retrospectively validate service or to revive an expired claim form.
8. In light of Vinos, and the fact that no valid service took place within the prescribed timeframe, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim. The claim is void and must be struck out accordingly.
9. Further and in the alternative, the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies.
10. The Particulars of Claim filed in this case do not identify a cause of action. They merely refer to a parking charge being incurred and assert, without evidence or explanation, that the Defendant breached unspecified terms and conditions.
11. No contractual terms are pleaded. No conduct is identified as constituting a breach. No explanation is given as to how the sum of £170 was arrived at, nor is any legal basis offered for seeking the claimed interest or charges.
12. This style of pleading has already been criticised in other persuasive appeals cases. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=ndm4dqsk&dl=0) and the same claimant as in this case, HHJ Murch held that the standard CEL wording failed to identify a cause of action and was therefore an abuse of process. The claim was struck out.
13. The same issues were identified in the persuasive appeals case of CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=366k8qf5&dl=0), where the County Court also struck out a claim pleaded in virtually identical terms for failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and failing to disclose any reasonable grounds or cause of action.
14. The Defendant invites the Court to adopt the same approach in this case and to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that (i) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, and (ii) it is an abuse of process.
15. The Defendant further submits that the Court is entitled to strike out the claim of its own initiative, on reading the Particulars of Claim and Defence, on the basis that:
(a) the Particulars do not set out the terms of any alleged contract;
(b) the Particulars do not identify what the alleged breach was;
(c) the Claimant could have remedied this defect by serving separate, detailed particulars pursuant to CPR PD7C para 5.2(2), but chose not to;
(d) the sums claimed are modest, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to expend court resources on ordering amended particulars and a further defence.
16. The claim concerns a very modest sum, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to allocate further court resources by ordering the Claimant to re-plead its case or to require the Defendant to plead a further defence to an incoherent claim.
17. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim in full.
18. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant reserves the right to amend and expand this Defence once proper Particulars of Claim are served.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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:
Date:
And the draft order, preferably as a Word (.docx) format, but PDF will be OK:
IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:
1. The claim form was not served within four months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and disclose no reasonable cause of action;
4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c);
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.
Dated:
I do not understand the questions. Could you please kindly formulate those in a different way, thanks
I am a bit surprised that the DDJ only required you to submit a defence by 24th June. Normally, they would require the claimant to either re-issue the claim first and then for you to submit your defence.
It may be worth waiting for the order to come from the court so you can show us and then we will know exactly what the DDJ ordered. It normally takes a week or so to arrive in the post.
You say the DDJ refused the strike out because you only put "Set aside" on the N244 application form. The DDJ was correct in law: the court cannot strike out a claim of its own initiative at a CPR 13.2 hearing if the N244 application itself didn’t expressly request a strike-out order. Whilst the draft order and WS asked for it—but unless it’s ticked or stated clearly in box 3 (the relief sought) on the N244 application, the court will usually limit its decision to what was formally requested on the face of that application.
That being said, the defence can still (and does) raise these strike-out points, and as the defendant, you are perfectly entitled to ask for the claim to be struck out in the defence. The CPR does not prevent a defendant from raising CPR 3.4 grounds at the defence stage, especially when:
• The claim form was never validly served within 4 months (CPR 7.5);
• The PoC are facially defective under CPR 16.4(1)(a);
• The sum is modest and disproportionate to pursue further;
• And the Court has now found service to be invalid under CPR 13.2.
As you have been given you a deadline by which you must file a defence to the claim and as you have not had any further PoC and unless the judge has ordered the claimant to submit them, it is too late for them to submit now. So, the defence you submit is based on the PoC of the original claim, even though technically, you have never been served them.
In addition to the suggested defence, you should also combine the following draft order with it. There is nothing for you to edit in the draft order except your name. The draft order is included with the defence as an attachment in MS Word format:
IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:
1. The claim form was not served within four months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;
2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and disclose no reasonable cause of action;
4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c);
2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.
Dated:
Here is a link to the draft order in MS Word .docx format:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4uodp2u986vowg0lca0os/Draft-order-H3GM808Q.docx?rlkey=qjqfcxqqllt8y4hhdvgvme20a&st=w5ukyid2&dl=0
I suggest the following defence be submitted but only after you've confirmed that the courts order in the set aside only required the defendant to submit a defence and that there was no other order on the claimant to submit a new claim or further PoC to the claim that was set aside today:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Cicil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration GJ60PEO.
2. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the sums claimed or any amount at all.
3. The Defendant was unaware of this claim until receiving a letter dated 13 October 2024 from the Claimant, informing them of a County Court Judgment entered in default on 15 June 2021. The Defendant applied to set aside that judgment on the grounds of defective service.
4. On 3 June 2025, the County Court granted the Defendant’s application and set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2. This confirms that no valid service of the claim form ever took place.
5. The Claimant issued the claim on 14 May 2021. In accordance with CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served on the Defendant within 4 calendar months of the date of issue — i.e. by 14 September 2021.
6. It is now an accepted fact, as recognised by the Court in setting aside judgment under CPR 13.2, that the claim form was never served within that 4-month period. No application to extend time for service was made within those 4 months. Therefore, the claim form expired and cannot now be revived.
7. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the Court of Appeal confirmed that failure to comply with CPR 7.5 by serving a claim form within the permitted period is fatal to the claim. The court has no power to retrospectively validate service or to revive an expired claim form.
8. In light of Vinos, and the fact that no valid service took place within the prescribed timeframe, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim. The claim is void and must be struck out accordingly.
9. Further and in the alternative, the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies.
10. The Particulars of Claim filed in this case do not identify a cause of action. They merely refer to a parking charge being incurred and assert, without evidence or explanation, that the Defendant breached unspecified terms and conditions.
11. No contractual terms are pleaded. No conduct is identified as constituting a breach. No explanation is given as to how the sum of £170 was arrived at, nor is any legal basis offered for seeking the claimed interest or charges.
12. This style of pleading has already been criticised in other persuasive appeals cases. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=ndm4dqsk&dl=0) and the same claimant as in this case, HHJ Murch held that the standard CEL wording failed to identify a cause of action and was therefore an abuse of process. The claim was struck out.
13. The same issues were identified in the persuasive appeals case of CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=366k8qf5&dl=0), where the County Court also struck out a claim pleaded in virtually identical terms for failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and failing to disclose any reasonable grounds or cause of action.
14. The Defendant invites the Court to adopt the same approach in this case and to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that (i) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, and (ii) it is an abuse of process.
15. The Defendant further submits that the Court is entitled to strike out the claim of its own initiative, on reading the Particulars of Claim and Defence, on the basis that:
(a) the Particulars do not set out the terms of any alleged contract;
(b) the Particulars do not identify what the alleged breach was;
(c) the Claimant could have remedied this defect by serving separate, detailed particulars pursuant to CPR PD7C para 5.2(2), but chose not to;
(d) the sums claimed are modest, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to expend court resources on ordering amended particulars and a further defence.
16. The claim concerns a very modest sum, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to allocate further court resources by ordering the Claimant to re-plead its case or to require the Defendant to plead a further defence to an incoherent claim.
17. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim in full.
18. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant reserves the right to amend and expand this Defence once proper Particulars of Claim are served.
DONOT send this or anything until the deadline date, as there may be further amendments depending on your answers to the above questions.
Nothing to worry about. Typical of a claimant that is now panicking and realises they have nowhere to run.
Your case is very strong.Their letter is marked "Without Prejudice Save as to Costs". This protects the contents from being shown to the judge when determining liability, unless and until the court is considering the question of costs after the outcome has been decided.
Therefore, the letter cannot lawfully be used to influence the judge's decision on whether to set aside judgment or strike out the claim.
They can try to show it at the end, only if the judge reaches a point of deciding who should bear costs — but this cuts both ways. You can point to your earlier offer and their refusal to engage before the application was filed, which makes their conduct worse.
A draft consent order is not binding unless both parties sign it and it is approved by the court. If they try to submit the draft order alone, implying agreement when you haven’t consented, that would be misleading the court — potentially amounting to abuse of process or even professional misconduct if done deliberately.
CEL’s claim in their “without prejudice save as to costs” letter — that they “would have made a similar offer had you contacted us prior to lodging your application” — is plainly false. You not only contacted them in advance, but you also provided detailed legal reasoning, gave them a clear and fair deadline, offered a cooperative solution (joint application) and deferred unilateral action to allow them time to respond.
This amounts to a reasonable and constructive pre-action offer in line with both CPR 1.1 (overriding objective) and CPR 44.2 (costs discretion).
I suggest you send a Supplemental Witness Statement (SWS)ogether with two additional exhibits, your original letter to CEL offering an uncontested set aside and their electronic receipt of that letter having been sent. Additionally, you can send CEL an SAR requiring them to provide copies of every piece of data that they hold on you. It will be interesting to see if they include anything that references that electronic receipt.
You should send the SWS
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS STATEMENT
I, [Defendant’s Full Name], of [full address], make this supplemental statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered on 15th June 2021 and to strike out the claim.
I make this statement in response to recent correspondence received from the Claimant, and to clarify the position regarding my efforts to resolve this matter prior to issuing my application.
Clarification Regarding Pre-Application Conduct
1. I have received a letter from the Claimant marked “Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”. I do not intend to rely upon the contents of that letter at this stage and understand that such correspondence is inadmissible until and unless the Court considers the issue of costs. However, I consider it necessary to clarify the factual record regarding my own pre-application conduct.
2. On 2nd November 2024, I submitted a detailed and reasoned letter to the Claimant via their online contact portal. In that letter, I proposed a joint application to set aside the default judgment and dismiss the claim, suggesting that the Claimant bear the application fee and that there be no order as to costs. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit XX-09.
3. I invited a response by 4 pm on 13th November 2024 and stated clearly that I would defer submitting a unilateral application until that deadline had passed. Despite this, the Claimant did not reply or acknowledge my proposal. I therefore proceeded to issue the application unilaterally, at my own expense.
4. I also attach as Exhibit XX-10 a copy of the automated receipt generated by the Claimant’s system confirming receipt of my correspondence on 2nd November 2024, under reference CELC_20241102_MB_933. The receipt stated that I would receive an acknowledgement and a substantive response within 28 days. I did not receive either.
5. I provide this information solely to assist the Court in understanding the full background to the application and to demonstrate that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the matter cooperatively prior to engaging the Court. I reserve the right to refer to any further correspondence if and when the Court considers the issue of costs.
Relevance to Application
6. The Claimant’s failure to respond to my open and constructive approach resulted in unnecessary proceedings and expense. This is particularly significant given that I made clear the procedural errors in the Claimant’s service of the claim and the prejudice I had suffered as a result.
7. I respectfully submit that my conduct was entirely reasonable and consistent with the overriding objective. The Claimant’s failure to engage with my open offer and their subsequent conduct support the view that their behaviour has been unreasonable.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this 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:
Date:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1. Supplemental Witness Statement of [Your Full Name]
2. List of Additional Exhibits:
Exhibit XX-09: Letter from Defendant to Claimant dated 2nd November 2024
[Insert your full letter beginning “URGENT – Dear Sirs...”]
Exhibit XX-10: Submission Receipt
[Insert the screenshot receipt or the wording from it here: “Thank you for contacting us. Your reference number is CELC_20241102_MB_933 for all correspondence. Please note we will respond to your complaint within 28 days. You will also receive an email acknowledgement with this reference on. If you do not receive one shortly, please check your email junk folder and/or ensure you supplied the correct email address.”
— Civil Enforcement Ltd online contact form, 2nd November 2024]
Each exhibit should have its own header as per all these pages and the title "Exhibit XX-NN". For example:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
EXHIBIT XX-09
Letter from Defendant to Claimant (2nd November 2024)
This letter was submitted as a PDF attachment on the Claimants website: https://www.ce-service.co.uk/submit-a-complaint/
URGENT
Dear Sirs,
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (THE ‘CLAIMANT’) V [your full name] CLAIM REFERENCE H3GM80Q8
On 24th October 2024, I received the attached letter dated 13th October 2024 from yourselves. This came as a tremendous shock as it is the first and only communication I have received from your company or any organisation representing you in relation to this claim.
I made immediate enquiries of the CNBC from which I was able to establish that:
1. the claim relates to an alleged parking event in March 2019;
2. the claim form was sent to an old address at which I no longer reside; and
3. if I had been given the opportunity to do so, I would have successfully defended the claim.
I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence, not even a letter of claim as required by the PAP. Nor did I receive the claim form or any particulars of claim and was thus deprived of the ability to defend the claim. Your company is well aware that people move home from time to time. You also know that I did not respond to any communications sent to me at my old address.
This situation is explicitly dealt with in the Civil Procedure Rules which provide at CPR 6.9(3):
(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant ... is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).
As your company is a member of the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’) and is bound by the BPA’s Code of Practice which gives voice to CPR 6.9(3) in the following terms:
24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NtD/NtK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.
If your company had taken the actions required by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice, my current address would have been found easily, which is obviously what you did before sending your letter dated 13th October 2024. If those actions had been performed at the correct time rather than after judgment, I would not have been deprived of the ability to defend the claim.
By reason of Civil Enforcement's breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the claim form was never properly served and the judgment must be set aside at your expense and the claim dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.
In view of the foregoing, I invite Civil Enforcement Ltd to join with me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with Civil Enforcement Ltd paying the court fee and no order as to costs.
Please respond to the above offer as soon as possible so that, if the offer is acceptable to you, we can work together to right the wrong that Civil Enforcement has done to me.
To give you a reasonable time to take instructions and for us to agree a suite of documents for the Court, I am willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until 4 pm on Wednesday 13th November 2024. If a joint application has not been made by that time, I intend to instruct a solicitor to apply to the Court unilaterally for an order setting the judgment aside, striking out the particulars of claim, dismissing the claim and awarding costs against Civil Enforcement Ltd on a full indemnity basis.
Pease respond by immediate return.
Yours faithfully,
And also the receipt:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON
Claim No: H3GM808Q
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
EXHIBIT XX-10
Submission Receipt from Civil Enforcement Ltd
(https://i.imgur.com/BTrHHbB.jpeg)
You send the SWS and extra exhibits as a PDF attachment in a single email addressed to: enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and legal@ce-service.co.uk and you also CC in yourself.
Make sure the email subject contains the clam number and in the body write something along these lines:
“Please find enclosed the Defendant’s Supplemental Witness Statement dated [insert date], filed in support of the set-aside application. This statement addresses new developments and provides additional evidence relating to the Claimant’s conduct and the Defendant’s pre-application correspondence.”
You should combine all the pages into a single PDF with each page numbered. When this goes to the hearing, you should prepare a single PDF document with the WS, exhibits, draft order for the set aside, SWS and additional exhibits, each page numbered. Take two hard copies of each with you. I tis not unusual for the claimants rep to feign that they haven't received all the paperwork. You can impress the judge by having available extra copies for both the court and the claimant.
Here is a WS and draft order you can send with your N244 application for the set aside. Please read it carefully and either insert or correct any dates and other details, where required:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the Defendant in this matter, and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 15th June 2021 in default due to defective service of the claim form. I also seek an order striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and other procedural irregularities.
2. I confirm that the matters set out in this witness statement are within my personal knowledge, except where indicated otherwise, and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. I was not aware of the claim made against me until I received a letter from the Claimant dated 13th October 2024, informing me that a default judgment had been obtained against me for an alleged parking contravention on 23rd March 2019. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit XX-01.
4. On 24th October 2024, I wrote to the Claimant outlining the procedural errors in their claim and inviting them to join me in a joint application to set aside the judgment. In my letter, I explained that the claim form had been sent to an old address at which I no longer resided and that I had not received any pre-claim correspondence, claim form, or particulars of claim. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit XX-02.
5. Despite being given a reasonable period to respond and correct their procedural failings, the Claimant failed to reply to my letter. This forced me to proceed unilaterally with this application at my own expense. The Claimant’s refusal to engage constructively or address their procedural errors amounts to unreasonable behaviour.
6. I made it clear in my letter that the Claimant’s breach of CPR 6.9(3) and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice had deprived me of the opportunity to defend the claim. Their inaction in response to my letter has further compounded this injustice.
7. The Claimant’s failure to act reasonably or to respond to my legitimate concerns supports the assertion that their behaviour has been wholly unreasonable. As such, I respectfully request that this be considered when the court addresses the question of costs.
8. The Claim Form was not served within its four-month validity period as required by CPR 7.5. In consequence, the court had, and continues to have, no jurisdiction over the claim, which has expired and cannot now be re-served. I refer the court to the authority of Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, attached as Exhibit XX-03, which establishes that a claim form not served within four months cannot be retrospectively validated.
9. CPR 12.3(1) states that a claimant may obtain judgment in default only if, at the date on which judgment is entered, (a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence, and (b) the relevant time for doing so has expired. Since the claim form was not validly served due to the Claimant’s failure to check for a current address (CPR 6.9(3)), the time limit for acknowledgment of service has not started and thus cannot have expired. Consequently, the default judgment was improperly entered.
10. As stated in Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71, attached as Exhibit XX-04, where the time for acknowledgment of service has not expired, any default judgment entered must be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2. The judgment against me meets this criterion and must therefore be set aside as of right.
11. The inadequacy of the Particulars of Claim (PoC), attached as exhibit XX-05 further invalidates the claim. The PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4, which requires a concise statement of facts, details of the alleged breach, and an explanation of how the amount claimed was calculated.
12. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44], attached as Exhibit XX-06, would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4
13. Such deficiencies were also highlighted in the persuasive appellate decision of CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], attached as Exhibit XX-07, where similarly vague PoC were found to be defective and resulted in claims being struck out.
14. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, as emphasised in VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179), attached as Exhibit XX-08, is to deal with cases justly. In that case, the Court of Appeal underscored that CPR 13.3 is intended to avoid injustice. Even where there is a delay in applying to set aside a default judgment, the overriding objective remains paramount.
15. In VCS v Carr, the court stressed that a holistic evaluation of all the circumstances is required to deal justly with the case. The court must consider whether the defendant had any real opportunity to advance a defence. In my case, I had no opportunity to respond to the claim or defend it, as I was not served with the claim form. As stated in VCS v Carr, a defendant cannot be criticised for failing to respond to a claim form that they never received.
16. Furthermore, in VCS v Carr, the Court of Appeal highlighted that the justice of the case requires consideration of whether a claimant would be unjustly enriched by a judgment to which they were not entitled. In my case, allowing this judgment to stand would unjustly enrich the Claimant at my expense.
17. The Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 and CPR 6.9, combined with their attempt to rely on an expired claim form, has deprived me of the opportunity to properly defend myself. As stated in VCS v Carr, the court must consider all the circumstances holistically, including the fact that I had no knowledge of the claim and no opportunity to contest it before the default judgment was entered.
18. I acted promptly upon learning of the default judgment. I became aware of the judgment on 24th October 2024 and immediately contacted the Civil National Business Centre and the Claimant to obtain further details. When the Claimant failed to respond, I prepared and filed this application.
19. I believe I have a strong defence to this claim, as follows:
a. The signage at the location of the alleged parking event was unclear and insufficient to form a valid contractual agreement.
b. The charges claimed are disproportionate and amount to an unenforceable penalty.
c. The Claimant has not demonstrated their legal right to pursue these charges or their compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
20. In light of the procedural breaches, the defective service of the claim form, the inadequacy of the PoC, and the fact that the claim is now time-barred, I respectfully request that the court:
a. Set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 or, alternatively, CPR 13.3;
b. Strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with CPR 16.4 and CPR 7.5;
c. Award me my costs of this application on an indemnity basis.
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:
Date:
Here is the table of contents for the WS, exhibits and draft order:
IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Witness Statement of [Your Full Name]
2. List of Exhibits:
Exhibit XX-01: Letter from the Claimant dated 13th October 2024, informing the Defendant of the default judgment.
Exhibit XX-02: Evidence of the Defendant’s address change, including [e.g., tenancy agreement, utility bills].
Exhibit XX-03: Case authority: Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784.
Exhibit XX-04: Case authority: Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71.
Exhibit XX-05: Particulars of Claim (PoC)
Exhibit XX-06: Case authority: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44.
Exhibit XX-07: Case authority: CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30.
Exhibit XX-08: Case authority: VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179).
3. Draft Order
Here is the Draft Order:
IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON hearing the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment entered on [date of judgment];
AND UPON the court finding that:
1. The claim form was not validly served in accordance with CPR 6.9;
2. The Claimant failed to comply with CPR 7.5 by not serving the claim form within four months of issue;
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by not providing a concise statement of facts sufficient to enable the Defendant to prepare a defence;
AND UPON the court considering the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly, as set out in CPR 1.1;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment entered against the Defendant on [date of judgment] 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) and (c) on the grounds that:
a. The Claimant failed to comply with CPR 7.5, and the claim form has expired unserved;
b. The Particulars of Claim are defective and fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action or provide sufficient particulars in accordance with CPR 16.4.
3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application, summarily assessed in the sum of £303, pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.
4. The costs shall be paid on an indemnity basis due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, including but not limited to:
a. Failing to take reasonable steps to serve the claim form at the Defendant’s correct address, in breach of CPR 6.9(3) and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice;
b. Issuing a claim with inadequate Particulars of Claim, in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a), making the claim defective;
c. Failing to serve the claim form within the four-month period required by CPR 7.5, rendering the claim expired and unservable;
d. Ignoring the Defendant’s letter dated 24th October 2024, which invited a joint application to resolve the matter reasonably and avoid unnecessary costs;
e. Forcing the Defendant to incur additional expense by proceeding unilaterally to remedy the Claimant’s procedural errors.
5. Any record of the judgment entered on 15th June 2021 shall be removed from the Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines forthwith.
Dated:
Here are links to the various exhibits except the ones you have to provide such as your proof of when you moved and a copy of the letter you sent to CEL advising them of the reason for requesting a set aside:
Exhibit XX-01: Letter from the Claimant dated 13th October 2024, informing the Defendant of the default judgment.
Exhibit XX-02: Evidence of the Defendant’s address change, including [e.g., tenancy agreement, utility bills].
Exhibit XX-03: Case authority: Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784. (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hqpuag1gmc4kkv1lrxptr/Vinos-v-Marks-Spencer-plc-2001-3-All-ER-784.pdf?rlkey=h78c70k2dr1amjozt7uimaej4&st=81v0i5gt&dl=0)
Exhibit XX-04: Case authority: Dubai Financial Group Llc v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71. (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pvqcjdt1r97m8fdw3w8c8/Dubai-FSG-v-National-Air-Services.pdf?rlkey=k1xtbc23zhuoc9k7n1yi7o2ky&st=vnt47g13&dl=0)
Exhibit XX-05: Particulars of Claim (PoC)
Exhibit XX-06: Case authority: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44. (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=2akbig4d&dl=0)
Exhibit XX-07: Case authority: CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30. (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=couazzx3&dl=0)
Exhibit XX-08: Case authority: VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179). (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ob8hw1062bdaiw8ine4u8/VCS-v-Carr.pdf?rlkey=m33wuz8wjogdz13mbisu69ziy&st=jfwhl1ea&dl=0)
I suggest you send the following letter to Civil Enforcement Ltd:
URGENT
Dear Sirs,
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (THE ‘CLAIMANT’) V [your full name] CLAIM REFERENCE H3GM80Q8
On 24th October 2024, I received the attached letter dated 13th October 2024 from yourselves. This came as a tremendous shock as it is the first and only communication I have received from your company or any organisation representing you in relation to this claim.
I made immediate enquiries of the CNBC from which I was able to establish that:
1. the claim relates to an alleged parking event in March 2019;
2. the claim form was sent to an old address at which I no longer reside; and
3. if I had been given the opportunity to do so, I would have successfully defended the claim.
I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence, not even a letter of claim as required by the PAP. Nor did I receive the claim form or any particulars of claim and was thus deprived of the ability to defend the claim. Your company is well aware that people move home from time to time. You also know that I did not respond to any communications sent to me at my old address.
This situation is explicitly dealt with in the Civil Procedure Rules which provide at CPR 6.9(3):
(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant ... is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).
As your company is a member of the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’) and is bound by the BPA’s Code of Practice which gives voice to CPR 6.9(3) in the following terms:
24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NtD/NtK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.
If your company had taken the actions required by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice, my current address would have been found easily, which is obviously what you did before sending your letter dated 13th October 2024. If those actions had been performed at the correct time rather than after judgment, I would not have been deprived of the ability to defend the claim.
By reason of Civil Enforcement's breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the claim form was never properly served and the judgment must be set aside at your expense and the claim dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.
In view of the foregoing, I invite Civil Enforcement Ltd to join with me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with Civil Enforcement Ltd paying the court fee and no order as to costs.
Please respond to the above offer as soon as possible so that, if the offer is acceptable to you, we can work together to right the wrong that Civil Enforcement has done to me.
To give you a reasonable time to take instructions and for us to agree a suite of documents for the Court, I am willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until 4 pm on Wednesday 13th November 2024. If a joint application has not been made by that time, I intend to instruct a solicitor to apply to the Court unilaterally for an order setting the judgment aside, striking out the particulars of claim, dismissing the claim and awarding costs against Civil Enforcement Ltd on a full indemnity basis.
Pease respond by immediate return.
Yours faithfully,
Use this link to submit the letter (plus a copy of the 13th October letter) as PDF files:
https://www.ce-service.co.uk/submit-a-complaint/
Just state in the "details" section: "Please refer to the attached urgent letter".
Let's see their response, if any, when it arrives. If they agree, do not do anything before we see their suggested draft order. It is crucial that we check it before agreeing as it would not be the first time a defendant had been bamboozled by surreptitious wording.