-
Thank you very much once again, all done. Will let you know what the court come back with, just so you know. It will be great if they grant the full costs as I'm very much looking forward to sending QDR a reminder.
-
That’s good, but you need to add the additional costs of 1.5 hours round trip time to attend @ £24/hour, mileage for the round trip at 45p/mile, parking and attendance time at the court at £24/hour.
Create a supplemental costs schedule and attach it to this email:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write as the Defendant in the above matter.
Further to my earlier emails regarding my application for costs following the Claimant’s late Notice of Discontinuance, I confirm that I attended Hertford County Court today (20 November 2025) at 9:45am for the hearing listed at 10:00am. I had received no notice from the court that the hearing had been vacated, and therefore attending in person was unavoidable.
Court staff confirmed that the hearing had been vacated due to the Claimant’s discontinuance, and noted my attendance on the file.
In addition to my previously submitted costs schedule, I now seek the further costs necessarily incurred today in attending the vacated hearing. These include:
– travel time (1.5 hours total)
– mileage/travel expenses
– court parking
– wasted preparation and attendance time
These costs arise solely because I was not informed that the hearing had been removed from the list.
I respectfully renew my request for the court to consider both my existing costs schedule and these additional wasted-journey costs, given the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout proceedings and the extremely late discontinuance.
Please confirm when this will be referred to a Judge.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
-
The old schedule reflected parking and attendance so should be up to date. I was thinking of something like this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write as the Defendant in the above matter.
Further to my earlier emails regarding my application for costs following the Claimant’s late Notice of Discontinuance, I confirm that I attended Hertford County Court today (20 November 2025) at 9:45am for the listed hearing time of 10:00am.
The court staff confirmed that the hearing had been vacated due to the Claimant’s discontinuance, and noted my attendance on the court file.
I respectfully renew my request for the court to consider my costs schedule already filed and served, on the basis of the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout proceedings and the extremely late discontinuance.
Please confirm when this will be referred to a Judge.
Yours faithfully,
-
Wait for other views, but I'd be minded to send a revised costs schedule that reflects the additional expense incurred by attending today, if the one you sent previously doesn't already account for this.
-
Howdo, I attended Hertford County Court at 9.45am with all my paperwork just in case. I had called earlier in the morning but was still on hold by the time I was already halfway there so I thought I may aswell just hang up and attend.
The security check-in guy said my case wasn't listed so that so that kind of told me it had been vacated, but I went through the motions just in case.
I explained my situation to the usher and she said she will have a word with the judge to see what's what as soon as the court gets going.
She came out after a few mins and confirmed the hearing had been vacated and the case discontinued. She also noted my attendance, but when I queried costs she said it was a job for Watford County Court, and gave me a slip with their email address on (which I am already more than familiar with!).
I have already sent my costs to Watford twice, but perhaps I should email them to let them know I attended today?
-
I certainly will! Thank you and (all your colleagues) so much, you've been beyond fantastic.
-
That's probably the best plan. You can still claim the costs of the travel at 45p/mile round trip and up to £95 for lost earnings. It is over as far as the claim is concerned. What you are doing now is getting your costs for their unreasonable behaviour. This is an "extra' for you and serves the morons at QDR right. They should stick to debt recovery rather than litigation as they are obviously crap at it.
Let us know how you get on.
-
I need to leave about 9am so will be extremely tight, will likely end up calling them on my handsfree speaker on the way up there, then do a U-turn back home if they answer and confirm it is vacated. ;D That's fine by me though, just so pleased it's all (almost) over and eternally grateful for all your priceless, knowledgeable advice.
-
You don’t need to reply to QDR at all now.
Costs are now between you and the court, not you and QDR. QDR’s last email is just them trying to:
• shut down your costs request, and
• scare you with “you need to make a formal application” (which is bollocks unless the judge tells you otherwise).
You’ve got the Notice of Discontinuance, sent your costs schedule to the court and told the court you want costs dealt with. That’s all that actually matters.
So, no further reply to QDR is required. If you want to be ultra-tidy, you could send a one-liner like:
“Your position is noted. The issue of costs is now a matter for the court.”
But it adds nothing of real value. I’d put your energy into ringing the court in the morning to confirm listing/vacated status, and being ready to argue costs briefly if you do end up in front of a judge.
-
This response from QDR is standard bullshit designed to deter you. Unless the court itself tells you the hearing is vacated, you should plan to go.
QDR saying “we are in receipt of confirmation from the Court that the listed hearing has been vacated” is not enough. They lie, misread, or mix files all the time.
Here’s what to do:
1. Right now / tonight• Assume you are attending tomorrow. Have your bundle, your WS and your costs schedule ready.
2. Tomorrow morning – 9am sharp• Ring the court as soon as the lines open.
• Ask this, very plainly:
“Is the hearing in [case number] at [time] today still listed, or has it been vacated?”
• “Has a Notice of Discontinuance been processed?”
• “Will the judge be dealing with my application for costs, and if so, on the papers or at a hearing?”
3. If the court says: “Yes, it’s vacated and will be dealt with on the papers”• Get the name of the person you spoke to.
• Ask them to note on the file that you have submitted a costs schedule and are seeking costs under CPR 38.6 because of the late discontinuance and unreasonable conduct.
• In that situation, you don’t need to travel, and your prep time is still claimable.
4. If you can’t get through, or they are vague, or say “it’s still listed” / “I can’t see it vacated”• Go to court.
• If you don’t show and it’s still listed, you risk losing the chance to argue costs.
• Your travel, parking and time are then properly part of your costs schedule.
5. If you arrive and find the hearing has been vacated• Go to the usher, explain you’re the defendant, the claim was discontinued late, and you’re seeking costs.
• Ask for your attendance and travel to be noted, and say you’ve already emailed a costs schedule.
• That record usually helps when the judge looks at costs later.
You’re not over-reacting by going. The only safe reason not to make the trip is if the court directly confirms it’s vacated and being dealt with on the papers. QDR’s email doesn’t change your obligations or your rights.
-
Sorry to double post, but just wanted to add that I have not received a notice of discontinuation from the court and their close of business is 4pm as far as I'm aware, so I will be attending unless I hear otherwise. (Which will be cutting it fine as I'll have to set off for Hertford at 9am latest).
Unless you hear otherwise I think this is sensible. You are being expected to take the claimant and their solicitors at their word - given their unreasonable conduct throughout that process, few people would blame you for not being prepared to do that.
the Defendant has not yet incurred the costs of attending the Hearing
That's probably the only cost you haven't incurred. All of the time and effort, and associated cost spent up until the courtroom door has still be incurred, much of which could have been avoided had the claimant behaved more reasonably.
-
Sorry to double post, but just wanted to add that I have not received a notice of discontinuation from the court and their close of business is 4pm as far as I'm aware, so I will be attending unless I hear otherwise. (Which will be cutting it fine as I'll have to set off for Hertford at 9am latest).
-
Just in:
We write in reference to the above matter.
Following on the below, it is the Claimant’s position that the Defendant has not yet incurred the costs of attending the Hearing, as this is yet to take place and a Notice of Discontinuance has now been filed and served on the parties and with the Court. Furthermore, the Claimant has discontinued the Claim, and the position remains that any costs incurred after the Notice of Discontinuance has been filed is due to the Defendant attending the Hearing which was listed to take place 20 November 2025.
Furthermore, we are in receipt of confirmation from the Court that the listed Hearing has been vacated and consequently, the Claimant’s advocate will not be in attendance, following confirmation of the Hearing being vacated.
Should the Defendant wish to contest the Notice of Discontinuance, the Claimant is of the position that he will need to make a formal application.
Yours faithfully, QDR
-
I've just done all as you said above, just in case. :)
-
Here it is, beautifully gift wrapped. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HzOjW3PrMvZXuOG0I39zjaawFZNxJ7rE/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Thank you so much, I did send my costs in to both parties yesterday, is that OK? I had a feeling this was a trick of some sort too so will attend court tomorrow until I hear from the actual court. Will upload the file they attached now.
-
Can you please show us the N279 NoD. Please leave the signature and their position visible.
This is exactly what we wanted — but you MUST NOT let them escape without costs.
And their little trick — discontinuing 24 hours before the hearing — is classic unreasonable behaviour under the White Book note to CPR 38.6.1, which allows the court to award you all your costs even on the small claims track.
Even though they want it “vacated”, the hearing remains listed unless the court expressly removes it from the list. Do not trust QDR.
You should attend and say:
“The Claimant has discontinued at the last minute. I respectfully apply for my costs under CPR 38.6 and the White Book annotation 38.6.1 due to unreasonable conduct.”
Judges routinely grant this when parking firms and their moronic solicitors pull this stunt.
Send your costs schedule to the court NOW. Email it immediately to the court and CC QDR with subject:
URGENT – Hearing tomorrow – Defendant’s Costs Schedule (Claim No: XXXXXXXX)
Attach:
• your costs schedule
• your updated covering email
Subject: URGENT – Hearing Tomorrow – Application for Costs Following Discontinuance (Claim No: [number])
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write as the Defendant in the above claim, which is listed for hearing on 20 November 2025 at 10:00am.
At 2pm today, I received an email from the Claimant’s solicitors enclosing a Notice of Discontinuance filed less than 24 hours before the hearing.
This extremely late discontinuance has put me to wholly unnecessary time, cost, and preparation after over three years of defective litigation, including:
1. failure to serve the original claim,
2. failure to comply with the CPR 16.4 order following set-aside,
3. the introduction of late evidence in breach of the court’s directions,
4. and now this last-minute discontinuance on the eve of trial.
I will be attending the hearing tomorrow.
I respectfully request that the matter remains listed for the court to hear my application for costs arising from the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
Under CPR 38.6 a claimant who discontinues is liable for the defendant’s costs, and although CPR 27 limits costs in the small claims track, the White Book annotation to CPR 38.6.1 expressly confirms that costs may still be awarded where the claimant has behaved unreasonably, including where discontinuance is served late.
I attach my costs schedule, served within the permitted timeframe under CPR 44.9.5(4)(a).
I therefore invite the court to (a) refuse the request to vacate the hearing, and (b) award the Defendant their costs due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour in the conduct of these proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Defendant
You are allowed to file it not less than 24 hours before the hearing, so sending it now is perfect and fully compliant.
Send the following to QDR:
Subject: Re: Notice of Discontinuance – Claim No: XXXXXXX
Dear Sirs
I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Discontinuance.
Given the extremely late stage at which you have discontinued — less than 24 hours before trial — I will be attending tomorrow’s hearing to seek my costs under CPR 38.6 and the White Book annotation to CPR 38.6.1 on the basis of the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
What will happen tomorrow
Three likely outcomes:
1. Most likely:
Judge keeps the hearing, hears your short submissions, and awards your costs (your full £422 or close to it).
2. Possibility:
Judge decides no hearing is needed and deals with it on paper. If so, you still get a written costs order.
3. Very rare:
Judge vacates the hearing and asks for written submissions. If that happens, you still win costs — you just submit by email.
You’ve played this perfectly by following the advice. Their last-minute discontinuance is textbook unreasonable behaviour.
-
Good afternoon!
Just had an early Christmas gift land in my inbox:
Good afternoon,
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED -v-
Claim Number:
Our Reference: 4161637
We write in relation to the above matter.
Please find attached the Claimants Notice of Discontinuance. Due to the time constraints and the hearing being listed for tomorrow 20 November 2025 at 10am, we request this be referred to a Judge urgently and for the hearing listed for tomorrow to be vacated.
Please note that the Defendant has been copied in this email.
Yours faithfully
QDR Solicitors
-
Thank you very much, and apologies but I posted with an update after comparing the docs, I posted at the exact same time as you....I think the documents in the WS and bundles are the same so my mistake.
As I say though, the point still stands about the court order, it is dated 3rd June not July, and it is a very small order with no extra pages and no text that they refer to whatsoever. This was amended from a previous May order which had the words 'claimant' and defendant' the wrong way around, so the 3rd June order was the last and final one.
I will send what you kindly suggested for me, but omit the bit about the photos as they do appear to be the same in both documents, they just looked new to me as they were in paper form.
-
This is such unreasonable behaviour. Email the court and CC QDR and yourself:
Subject: UKPC v [Your Name] – Claim [number] – Objection to late bundles and request for directions
Dear Court,
I am the Defendant (litigant in person). The hearing is listed for 20 November 2025.
Yesterday/today I received from the Claimant two ring-bound bundles (trial and authorities) together with a covering letter asserting that an order “dated 3 July 2025” requires bundles to be filed no less than three days before the hearing.
I have not been served with any such order. The only directions in my possession state (at paragraph 6) that each party must deliver to the other party and to the court copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely no later than fourteen days before the hearing. The Claimant’s bundles and the additional documents within them were served well after that deadline.
I object to the late service and to the inclusion of “new” evidence (additional photos, signage images and landowner letters) that were not contained in the Claimant’s witness statement. No application for an extension or for relief from sanctions has been made or served on me.
I respectfully ask the Court to:
1. Exclude all material served late and any new documents not contained in the Claimant’s witness statement; or
2. If the Court is minded to admit any late material, to list a short adjournment and order the Claimant to pay my wasted costs, given the prejudice caused to a litigant in person.
For clarity before the hearing, I also ask the Court to confirm which directions order governs filing/service for this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Defendant
Email QDR and CC the court and yourself as follows:
Subject: UKPC v [Your Name] – Claim [number] – Late bundles, new evidence and wrong order date
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your ring-bound trial and authorities bundles and your letter dated 12 November 2025.
Your letter refers to an order “dated 3 July 2025” with a three-day bundle provision. I have not been served with any such order. The only directions on file require service of all documents to be relied upon no later than fourteen days before the hearing. Your bundles and the additional documents are therefore out of time. No application for relief has been served.
I object to:
• All material served late; and
• All “new” photographs/signage/landowner letters now added to the bundle which were not in your witness statement, have no provenance or dates, and lack location context.
I will invite the Court to exclude the late material. If the Court is minded to admit it, I will seek an adjournment with costs due to the prejudice caused to me as a litigant in person.
Please treat this email as formal notice of objection and place it with your bundle correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Further tips for the hearing:
• Bring the direction sheet that says 14 days (the photo you shared).
• Have your costs schedule ready; ask for £24/hr LiP time + disbursements under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if the Judge finds their conduct unreasonable.
• If the Judge asks “what prejudice?”, say: you needed time to check dates, provenance and site-context of the new photos/letters; preparing a response at short notice is unfair for a LiP; late service increases your prep time and cost.
-
Sorry my mistake, the paper copies they sent of the signage and landowner etc do appear to be as per their emailed bundle which I received. They just looked different in paper form. The pics don't show anything of note anyway.
Where they got this 3rd July court order from is still a mystery though, as the final court order was dated 3rd June and there is no 4th page or text that they speak of within it anyway.
-
The order they speak of doesn't appear to exist, there is one dated 3rd June 2025 but the page and text they speak of doesn't exist in that. I have everything that was sent to me in my inbox, also, surely they wouldn't send another order a month after the final order that was sent. I feel they have mixed up the paperwork with someone else's.
There are also a load of new added photos or signage etc and landowner authority letters I am pretty sure weren't in the original WS sent by QDR. I have to go through it all but I am pretty sure they are new. The signage pics prove nothing IMO as they are not shown in context to the location of the alleged contravention, and many are of completely different sections of the car park.
-
Hello just an update, came home to another 2 ring binders with the physical copies of their trial bundle and authorities bundle, with a letter on the front which I've uploaded here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LVqU_GcTuShX62xpVJm76ZstT_UBMW83/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Thank you so much! All done. :)
-
On the 18th November, submit the following costs schedule to the court and CC QDR. You also take at least 2 hard copies of it with you to court, just in case anyone says they never received it:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No: [insert claim number]
Between: UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)
and
[Defendant’s full name] (Defendant)
DEFENDANT’S COSTS SCHEDULE
Hearing date: 20 November 2025
Hearing type: Small Claims Hearing
1. Basis of claim for costs
This schedule is submitted in advance of the hearing pursuant to CPR 27.14 and CPR 46.5(4)(b).
The Defendant seeks costs under:
• CPR 27.14(2)(a): fixed costs (travel, parking, loss of earnings/time).
• CPR 27.14(2)(g): costs for the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout proceedings, including failure to comply with the court’s order dated 3 July 2025, late service of documents, and persistent procedural defaults.
2. Time spent on case preparation
| Description | Hours | Rate | Total |
| Reviewing original claim, set-aside application, and court orders | 3.0 | £24/hr | £72.00 |
| Reviewing claimant’s witness statement and exhibits | 2.5 | £24/hr | £60.00 |
| Preparing and drafting Defendant’s witness statement | 5.0 | £24/hr | £120.00 |
| Reviewing claimant’s bundle correspondence and preparing responses | 2.0 | £24/hr | £48.00 |
| Preparation of this costs schedule and bundle review before hearing | 1.5 | £24/hr | £36.00 |
| Attendance at hearing (including waiting time) – estimate | 2.0 | £24/hr | £48.00 |
| Subtotal (time costs) | 16.0 hrs | | £384.00 |
3. Disbursements
| Description | Amount |
| Printing and copying (witness statement, exhibits, bundle) | £12.00 |
| Postage and recorded delivery | £6.00 |
| Travel to Watford County Court (return mileage / public transport) | £15.00 |
| Parking at court | £5.00 |
| Subtotal (disbursements) | £38.00 |
5. Statement
I am a litigant in person and claim my time at the standard rate of £24 per hour under CPR 46.5(4)(b).
The Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable throughout, including defective service, failure to comply with court directions, late service of documents, and the submission of procedurally defective pleadings.
I therefore respectfully request that the court award my costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in the total sum of £422.00.
Signed: [Your full name]
Date: [insert date]
Obviously amend as necessary with actual figures for you and remove anything that you have not Doen, such as if you have not posted anything you would not include postage etc. For each of your court visits, include mileage at 45p/mile round trip if you drove plus any parking or, if you used public transport, include the receipts, and so on.
-
You reply to QDR as follows and CC yourself:
Subject: UKPC v [Defendant] – Claim No. [ ] – Objection to Late Bundle and Case Summary
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 11 November 2025 concerning the proposed trial bundle and Case Summary.
For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 6 of the Court’s Order dated 3 July 2025 required each party to serve all documents intended to be relied upon no later than fourteen days before the hearing, namely by 6 November 2025. Your correspondence of 11 November 2025 is therefore out of time and non-compliant with that Order. No application for an extension of time or for relief from sanctions has been served. I do not consent to any retrospective variation or informal extension.
Your late approach appears to be an attempt to regularise procedural non-compliance after the fact. The Defendant will draw the Court’s attention to this and will invite the Court to disregard any material filed or served out of time unless permission is formally granted.
Without prejudice to that position, I do not agree with your proposed Case Summary, which contains several factual and procedural inaccuracies, including but not limited to:
– the claim was never properly served in accordance with CPR 7.5;
– the claimant has failed to comply with CPR 16.4; and
– the claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s specific directions concerning evidence and bundle preparation.
If, notwithstanding the above, the Court permits a late authorities bundle, please ensure inclusion of the following cases for completeness:
– Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Plymouth CC, HHJ Mitchell, 21 Aug 2023)
– Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB)
– Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Defendant
You also send the following to the court and you attach a copy of QDR's email and your response. CC QDR and yourself:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No.: [Claim number]
Between:
UK Parking Control Ltd – Claimant
and
[Your full name] – Defendant
Date: [Insert today’s date]
To: The Court Manager
[Court’s email address]
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Late service of trial bundle and Case Summary – breach of paragraph 6 of order dated 3 July 2025
I write to place on record that the Claimant’s solicitors, QDR Solicitors Ltd, have served proposed bundle indexes and a draft Case Summary by email dated 11 November 2025.
Under paragraph 6 of the Court’s directions dated 3 July 2025, all documents to be relied upon at the hearing were required to be served and filed no later than fourteen days before the hearing — that is, by 6 November 2025. The claimant’s email of 11 November 2025 is therefore out of time and non-compliant.
No application for an extension of time or relief from sanctions has been served on me. I do not consent to any retrospective variation or informal extension of the timetable.
For the Court’s ease of reference, I attach:
• A copy of the claimant’s late email dated 11 November 2025; and
• A copy of my response letter to the claimant dated [insert date], setting out my objection.
I respectfully ask that this correspondence be placed on the case file for the trial judge’s attention.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
Defendant
Here are links to the authorities for your bundle:
Brennan v PPS (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=gn8j7nff&dl=0)
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/avemaaeatg8znf97gix8m/Mazur-and-Ors-v-CRS-LLP.pdf?rlkey=ijv0ibxmz7ok6vrgwcvfdqpob&st=g7k6d186&dl=0)
Vinos v Marks & Spencer (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hqpuag1gmc4kkv1lrxptr/Vinos-v-Marks-Spencer-plc-2001-3-All-ER-784.pdf?rlkey=h78c70k2dr1amjozt7uimaej4&st=sao9lrae&dl=0)
You attach those authorities as PDF files to the email to QDR.
-
Would something like this be OK?
Subject: Response to QDR email – Bundle & Case Summary (Claim No. )
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your email.
Please ensure that my witness statement and exhibits dated 5 November 2025 are included in the bundle. I have no further documents to add.
In respect of the proposed case summary, I do not agree with the wording as it omits the key procedural point that the original claim form, issued on 7 December 2022, was never served within four months as required by CPR 7.5. No application for an extension under CPR 7.6 was made, and therefore the claim expired. This goes directly to the court’s jurisdiction.
Kind regards,
-
Just had this through from QDR, I have no idea what the purpose of it is or if I need to respond? This is a link to the three attachments, I've combined them: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQV4kWerPUDn5BQy2zFWCbBQV7qj3iF0/view?usp=sharing
Please help? :o
We write in reference to the Hearing listed on 20 November 2025.
As per the Order dated, 3 July 2025, the parties are to agree a trial bundle and any relevant authorities bundle. Please find attached copies of the indexes for the relevant bundles, if you have any further documents you wish to be included in either version, please provide these by 13:00pm Wednesday 12 November 2025, so that we can ensure they are included within the bundles. For the avoidance of doubt, if we do not hear back from you, we will be filing and serving the Bundles with the Court to comply with the prescribed deadlines.
Please also find attached a copy of the proposed draft Case Summary for your approval, which is to be included within the bundle. Please also confirm if you propose any amendments.
We kindly await your confirmation and copies of any documents to be provided to be included within the bundle, ahead of next weeks hearing by no later than 13:00pm on Wednesday 12 November 2025
-
Thank you, QDR didn't give any indication that I noticed. I may have messed up last time by not being vocal enough about the main point. To be honest at the time I was a bit flustered. I think I have a better understanding this time around.
-
I’m sure you’ll be fine. You know all the points that you are contesting.
Did QDR give any indication whether they will attend the hearing?
One of your strongest points is that the original claim was never served within 4 months. Make sure you emphasise that at your hearing. There is no discretion on the court to allow an unserved claim to stands. I was very surprised when the set aside judge allowed it. I can’t remember if that was even brought up at the set aside.
On the day, arrive early enough to get through security and let the usher know you have arrived. Remember to ask for costs for unreasonable behaviour when you win. You can prepare a costs schedule for your time spent on this matter at the Litigant in person rate of £24/hour.
Time spent on research, preparing your set aside, defence, WS etc all count. Also, any travel expenses to and from the hearing are also allowed, such as transport, parking etc.
-
Just a minor update to say I did submit my WS at 15:30 on the 6th November. I also received a ring binder of QDR's WS the same day. It was identical to the one that they tried to submit online which was rejected due to page and file size, I have no idea if the court has actually received either of the copies of their WS. So as far as it stands I'm ready for court on the 20th. ;)
-
Thank you very much, I will do. Yep the hearing is on the 20th.
-
If the hearing is scheduled for 20th November, then yes. However, I suggest you do not submit it until just before 4pm on the 6th.
-
Ok thank you, so I should definitely send it on the 6th?
-
“no later than fourteen days before the hearing” excludes the hearing date itself.
That means the deadline is 14 clear days before the hearing, not counting the hearing day. So if the hearing is on a Friday, the latest day to serve documents would be two Fridays prior.
This interpretation aligns with standard UK civil procedure, where “clear days” typically exclude both the starting and ending dates unless otherwise specified. If the instruction had said “within 14 days of the hearing,” that would include the hearing date — but “no later than 14 days before” sets a cutoff that precedes it.
-
I'm wondering myself now...do they mean 14 days excluding the actual court day? Should I send tomorrow maybe just to play it safe?
-
In a previous reply you had indicated it was 6th - that would seem to be 14 days prior to 20th, when the hearing is due to take place.
Both parties have until 4pm on Thursday 6th November to submit their WS.
Simultaneously remarkable yet unsurprising that a firm of solicitors that issues small claims so readily hadn't noticed that their WS was too large for online submission.
-
It says at the bottom here "no later than 14 days before the hearing" https://ibb.co/23StLL6X
-
I did tell you that you were dealing with an incompetent solicitor employed by an equally incompetent firm.
Where did it say that their WS must be received by Thursday 6th November? As far as I am aware, the deadline for receipt of any documents they intend to rely on in court must be received no later than 4pm tomorrow, Wednesday 5th November.
-
Thank you, will do. This was the email:
Good afternoon,
The attached document exceeds 50 pages and as a result we will not print/process them. Please post the said document to the court.
I will kindly remind you of the Court’s PRACTICE DIRECTION 5B – COMMUNICATION AND FILING OF DOCUMENTS BY E-MAIL under 3.3
3.3
A person may e-mail the court or attach one or more specified documents to an e-mail to the court provided that—
(a) when printed out on both sides of A4 paper, the following documents together do not exceed 25 sheets of paper in total—
(i) the e-mail;
(ii) the attachments, including any document or e-mail embedded in any attachment; and
(iii) copies of documents in (i) and (ii) that the court would be required to serve, if service by the court is requested or required under the rules;
(b) if the e-mail, including any attachments, is being sent to take a step in proceedings, that step is being taken by only that e-mail and attachments, and no other e-mail or hard copy is being sent as part of that step; and
(c) the total size of the e-mail, including any attachments, does not exceed 10.0 megabytes.
Further information is available via the link below
www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/practice-direction-5b-communication-and-filing-of-documents-by-e-mail
-
What message did you receive that notified you about their WS being bounced? Was an order issued giving them extra time to resubmit?
You can send your request for costs with your WS or give it (and a copy for the claimant) at the hearing. Remember, you do not submit your WS until just before the 4pm deadline.
-
Their witness statement bounced back as it was way overthe 25 page limit, so they now have til Thurs to get it posted or shortened. Should I send my expenses itinerary in with my WS on Thurs? Or wait til the actual hearing to bring it up? It is in the region of £300 for all my wasted time (if I win obviously). Is this reasonable practice to request?
-
You are a star, thank you so much!
-
Typical of an incompetent solicitor employed by an incompetent firm of supposed legals. I have had a read of the WS and it is all hearsay, advocacy and with basic errors, all signed under a Statement of Truth. I have adjusted the WS I have prepared for you accordingly.
You can sign the WS by simply typing your full name for the signature. However, only do so if you agree with everything in it and you believe it to be true. You will attach it as a PDF to an email which will be sent to the court and CC'd to QDR and yourself. On the day, you take two extra copies with you to the hearing as it is not unknown for the claimant to plead that they never received it. You have extra copies for them and the judge if necessary.
Email it just before 4pm on the deadline date.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the defendant in this claim. I am making this witness statement in support of my defence. The claim was originally issued in December 2022 but was never validly served.
2. The claimant’s witness statement has not been written by anyone with direct knowledge of the facts. It is signed by a solicitor acting for the claimant, who had no involvement in the events and is simply repeating what they have been told or what is in the claimant’s file. Much of the content is not even evidence but argument, and some parts are clearly wrong — for example, it wrongly states the claim was issued on 17 December 2025, a date that hasn’t even happened yet. Given that this is a hearsay statement made by someone without first-hand knowledge, I respectfully submit that it should be given little or no weight by the court.
3. I want to make it clear to the court that I genuinely have no idea who was driving that car on the day in question back in 2017, an inconspicuous day, over 8 years ago. The Claimant has included a photograph of a sign, but it shows no context whatsoever — there is no indication of where it is located or whether it was even near where the car was supposedly parked. Since 2017, I’ve moved house, had a child, lost both my parents, suffered a breakdown, and owned eight different cars. I honestly have no recollection of who parked the vehicle there on that day.
4. None of the supposed correspondence ever reached me at the time. I only saw the claim details for the first time very recently when I applied to have the original, defective CCJ set aside. The area in question is a wide, unmarked multi-bay zone that I remember has always been casually used by residents and locals for short-term parking, such as popping into the shop. I don’t understand how the sign — which appears to relate to a different part of the site with marked bays — is supposed to apply to that area. It is not clear what terms, if any, were even visible or enforceable in that specific spot.
5. On 8 May 2025, the judgment was set aside because the court found the claim had been sent to my old address where I no longer resided, over 5 years after the original PCN had been issued. The claimant did not offer any evidence of when or how they tried to confirm my address and made no attempt to check if it was correct. This was a breach of CPR 6.9.
6. The court order from that hearing required the claimant to file and serve a fully particularised claim in line with CPR 16 by 21 May 2025. The order said clearly that if they failed to do this, the claim would be struck out automatically.
7. The claimant has not complied with that order. They did not issue a new claim or properly serve the original claim. Instead, they just submitted more particulars based on the original claim form, which was never validly served. That claim form was issued on 7 December 2022 and became void after four months because it was not served. The claimant did not apply for extra time under CPR 7.6. The courts have made it clear in cases like Vinos, Boxwood, Croke and Piepenbrock that a claim form not served in time is dead and cannot be revived.
8. The further particulars and the accompanying letter were both signed and submitted to the court by Jordan Warwick-Tearne, a paralegal. These actions constitute the conduct of litigation, a reserved legal activity. However, Mr Warwick-Tearne does not appear on the Roll of Solicitors or hold rights of audience or litigation as required by law.
9. The High Court judgment in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirmed that unauthorised individuals may not engage in reserved legal activities, including correspondence with the court or signing statements of case. These documents are therefore of no legal standing and should be disregarded by the court.
10. The claimant’s reference to ParkingEye v Beavis is not relevant to this case. That judgment was based on specific facts involving a retail car park with a free parking period, clear and prominent signs, and a legitimate need to manage space turnover. None of that applies here. This is a private residential site. The signs are not prominent, and the £100 charge is buried in small text. The added £60 is not clearly presented as a contractual term. There is no evidence this sum was incurred or paid, or that any contract was formed on those terms. Relying on Beavis in this very different context is not appropriate.
11. The Notice to Driver that was left on the vehicle only shows an “issue time”. It doesn’t say how long the vehicle was parked or give any actual “period of parking”. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a), says the notice MUST “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. Just giving a timestamp doesn’t meet that requirement. In the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Plymouth County Court, 21 August 2023), the judge said in paragraph 27 that even a short stated period like “12:40 to 12:51” would have been enough. In paragraph 28, the judge also explained that a single recorded moment in time does not show that the car was parked — it could have just been briefly present. Because this notice doesn’t specify any period of parking, it doesn’t meet the rules and the keeper can’t be held liable under PoFA.
12. Also, even if PoFA didn’t apply, there’s no evidence that a contract was ever formed with the driver. The Private Parking Code of Practice (version 1.1, 17 February 2025) says there must be a minimum 5 minute consideration period so that drivers can read the signs and decide whether they want to stay. If a vehicle leaves within that time, then no contract has been accepted. In this case, there is no observation period and no evidence that the car stayed long enough for the driver to accept any terms. That’s only assuming the signs were even clear enough to form a contract in the first place, which I don’t accept.
13. The claimant’s solicitor has also made a serious error in paragraph 33 of their statement by claiming that the Notice to Keeper was sent “within the 56-day window required” under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is plainly incorrect. Paragraph 8 applies where a Notice to Driver has been issued, not paragraph 9, and the 56 days run from “the day after the period of parking ended”.
14. The Notice to Keeper was dated 12 January 2018, but that does not mean it was “given” on that day. Under Schedule 4 Paragraph 8(6) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a notice sent by post is considered delivered on the second working day after it is sent, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since 12 January 2018 was a Friday, the second working day after that would have been Tuesday 16 January 2018. This would be the earliest date the notice could be considered “given”. That is outside the 56-day limit that applies when a Notice to Driver was already given under PoFA para 7, as in this case. The alleged incident took place on 19 November 2017, so the deadline for delivery of a Notice to Keeper was 14 January 2018. Because the notice was not delivered (given) in time, it is not compliant with PoFA and I cannot be held liable as the registered keeper. I have no idea who was driving, and the claimant has not proven who was. They are not allowed to pursue me as the keeper.
15. I have looked at the contractual documents included by the claimant and I do not believe they demonstrate that UK Parking Control Ltd had any right to issue parking charges at the site in 2017 or to pursue them in their own name. The alleged contravention occurred on 19 November 2017. However, the contract they rely on is signed in 2014 and again in 2019. There is no contract from 2017, nor anything confirming that the 2014 agreement was still in effect at that time.
16. The cover page contains a handwritten note saying "Ticketing to commence 28/04/08 in accordance with attached phasing appendix", but it is just an annotation with no signature, no explanation, and no evidence of legal effect. I cannot tell who wrote it or when. The "phasing appendix" referred to has not been included. Without that, it’s unclear what areas the agreement was meant to cover or when enforcement was actually allowed to start.
17. The contract is signed by someone called Louisa Jeffcoate for the “Client,” but there is no explanation of what company she represented or whether that company even owned the land in 2017. There is no document showing that the company signing the contract in 2014 (or 2019) still had any rights over the land in 2017, or had the legal authority to give enforcement rights to UKPC. The Particulars of Claim mention Barratt as the developer, which suggests they may have been the original landowner, but there’s nothing showing how or when ownership changed or who was responsible in 2017.
18. There is also nothing in the contract that shows UKPC were authorised to issue PCNs and take court action in their own name. From what I can see, there is no clear evidence that they had any valid rights at all during the period in question.
19. The claimant now relies on two additional documents, exhibits MY3 and MY4, both dated 2015 and issued by Ian Gibbs Estate Management. They are not contracts but letters asserting that UK Parking Control Ltd had authority to operate at Parkhouse Court. Neither document is signed by a landowner or any identified legal entity holding title to the site. “Parkhouse Court” is an address, not a company or person. These letters are hearsay statements by a managing agent and provide no proof that UKPC was granted rights by the true landowner.
20. Both MY3 and MY4 refer to an “agreement dated 28 April 2008 running in perpetuity until terminated,” yet that alleged contract has not been produced. There is no evidence that any such agreement exists, was executed by a landowner, or remained in force in 2017. Without the underlying document, the court cannot verify its terms, scope, or validity.
21. Even if the 2015 letters were genuine, they are not contemporaneous with the date of the alleged parking event and do not show continuity of authority through to 2017. They also fail to establish that Ian Gibbs Estate Management held any proprietary interest in the land or any legal power to delegate enforcement rights. Assertions of “sufficient contractual authority” are not evidence of ownership or of any chain of title.
22. None of the claimant’s exhibits, including MY3 and MY4, demonstrate that UK Parking Control Ltd had a valid agreement giving them the right to issue parking charge notices or to bring proceedings in their own name at the relevant time. From what I can see, there remains no credible evidence of landowner authority or standing.
23. I believe this claim is both procedurally defective and without merit. The claimant failed to serve the original claim within the required time, did not comply with the court’s order to file and serve a fully particularised claim, and has not shown any legal right to pursue a parking charge against me. The notices issued do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the driver has not been identified. The claimant has also failed to produce any valid evidence of landowner authority or legal standing to issue parking charges or bring proceedings in their own name for the date in question. As the registered keeper, I cannot be held liable. I ask the court to strike out the claim and consider an appropriate costs order due to the claimant’s unreasonable conduct in pursuing a claim that has no proper foundation.
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:
-
Just after a cursory glance and in my humble opinion it looks as though they have completely ignored or missed the point of my original statements, and have made various date errors.
-
Good evening!
Witness statement just arrived. Please see link below, and many thanks as always.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IrSiLwwcBabVMX72eG3RXje7-LkK4d2Q/view?usp=sharing
-
Ah fantastic, thank you very much, and will do.
-
So, if you have not received WS from them by 4pm on 5th November, let me know and I will provide the prepared WS for you, which you can then email to the court and CC QDR.
-
Thank you so much!
I was not a resident there, so would've been visiting shops if anything. Ironically I parked there sometimes to avoid the hassle of the ticketing further down in the main Aldi car park! It's free at the Aldi car park for an hour, but you have to get a ticket anyway. The bit I parked in used to be a free few bays, then suddenly became controlled.
The deadline for witness statements is 6th November.
-
I have prepared a WS for you but I will not publish it here for now. You have to wait and see whether they submit their WS by the 4pm deadline on the corder. Please remind me what the deadline for submission of documents that will be relied on.
Also, were you a resident or just a visitor at that location at the time?
-
Sorry I thought I had set it correctly. It should work now.
-
It is asking me to sign in to request access, you need to adjust the security settings.
-
Thank you very much. I have paper copies somewhere but I think they are just duplicates of these emails.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dawaPQYezLc7G8yOhyZLFRQh3jNBBDSS/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PcCis2t-JSU0RFDPRoarV41OmGfKafth/view?usp=drive_link
-
Is Google Drive OK to use here?
Google Drive is fine, just make sure the privacy settings are such that we can view them.
-
There is at least one form signed by a paralegal. I will upload everything tonight or tomorrow. Is Google Drive OK to use here? The files are about 40mb in 2 PDFs.
-
Thank you, I will go through all the emails and get them up over the weekend.
I have quickly looked through them all just now though and they all appear to end the same, with just a signature box signed 'QDR Solicitors' and the email address appears to always just be the 'defended.qdr' one. Never any mention of actual names.
I will go through them all thoroughly over the weekend and get them up asap.
-
Both parties have until 4pm on Thursday 6th November to submit their WS. DO NOT submit anything before you see their WS. You can start preparing your own WS. It is simply your version of all the events, written in the first person. Any WS will also need to point out to the court all the technical errors that were listed in your defence.
Unfortunately, all the images of the documents you hosted are not available any more. I need to know, urgently, the name and position of every person from QDR who corresponded with you and the court. DO NOT redact any names of these people or their position or title. I have reason to believe that the person conducting the litigation on behalf of QDR is not authorised to do so and has been doing so in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA).
So, start putting together your own WS and show us copies of ALL correspondence from QDR with the persons name and position unredacted. This also means ANY forms submitted that you were copied into, including any PoC/Claim/N180DQ etc.
-
Hello, yes, sure. Here they are:
https://ibb.co/wrrDSQk2
https://ibb.co/23StLL6X
https://ibb.co/W4Z0ZtW9
https://ibb.co/hFYSwzTJ
Many thanks.
-
Can you please re-share (using a suitable third party site like ImgBB) the letter from the court advising of the hearing date etc.
-
I finally got through, apparently they did pay the court fee on the 17th October so the hearing should still be going ahead.
-
Being over burdened as they are, you are often on hold for ages. Phoning first thing is often sensible.
-
Well, the deadline passed today, and I have heard nothing. I did try to call the court but I was on hold for an enormous amount of time and had to hang up to go do other things. Will call again in the morning to confirm whether or not the hearing has been discontinued.
-
Ah OK thank you for clearing that up and pardon my ignorance. :)
-
It is not "statute barred" per se. The "four-month dead rule" means that once a claim form is issued by the court, it must be properly served on the defendant within four months. If it's not served in that time, the claim becomes invalid or "dead".
The court may allow more time, but only in extremely limited circumstances and usually before the deadline expires. If the claim isn't served in time and no extension is granted, the case is likely to be struck out, even if it was issued within the limitation period.
CPR 7.6 applies:
• A claimant can apply to the court to extend the time for serving a claim form.
• This application should normally be made before the original 4-month deadline expires.
• If the application is made after the deadline, the court can only grant an extension if:
1. The court itself failed to serve the claim form, or
2. The claimant took all reasonable steps to serve it but couldn’t, and
3. The claimant acted promptly in applying for the extension.
The rule is strict. If they miss the deadline and don’t meet these conditions, the court cannot extend time—even if the claim was issued in time.
This was confirmed in Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/B526.html), where the Court of Appeal held that CPR 7.6(3) is a self-contained code and the court has no discretion to extend time outside its terms.
-
Thank you so much. Would the issue of the possibility of it being statute barred still be worth using?
-
All standard stuff. It is the court directions order. The hearing is set for 20th November. The claimant must pay the trial fee of £27 by 4pm on 23rd October. If they don't pay it by that deadline, the claim is struck out and they will be liable for your costs.
Should they pay it, then both parties have a deadline of 14 days before the hearing to submit their Witness Statements to the court (and each other). So, 6th November is the WS deadline.
If you've heard nothing by 4pm on 23rd October, come back and let us know. You will have to call the court and check whether the claimant has discontinued the claim and whether the hearing has been vacated.
Put the date in your diary. I suspect that they will discontinue. However, if they don't, the claim should not be heard anyway as the claim was never served within 4 months of it being issued. That is fatal to their claim.
-
Hello all,
I just had this sent through. Was curious as to your thoughts on it?
I'm a bit confused as to if I have to act now or wait to see if the claimant files a properly completed application.
Many thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just follow this advice:
Do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. You can discard those. Download your own N180 here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
Hello again! I received this through this morning. Is there anything particular I should mention in the N180 form they want me to complete? Many thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Send the following to UKPC and you can CC in QDR if you're feeling generous:
Subject: Re: Costs Order – Case [Claim Number]
Dear [UKPC Contact Name],
Further to your request for a copy of the court order dated 8 May 2025, I must reiterate that your appointed legal representative, QDR Solicitors, was served with the order directly by the court.
It is not my responsibility to manage communication between you and your legal representatives. You should liaise with QDR to obtain the copy you require.
For the avoidance of doubt, the court awarded me costs of £313.00 payable by you by 17 June 2025. Failure to comply with this order may result in enforcement action and associated additional costs without further notice.
Yours faithfully,
[Defendant’s Name]
-
Why not send as requested, but with QDR very clearly copied and include their emails to you requesting the document and the one saying that they can’t ask QDR for it for some reason?
-
I've just had an email from UKPC (not QDR) asking for a copy of the court order so they can pay my costs! I told them QDR were served a copy so go back to them, they then said they can't help me any further unless I send them a copy!
Should I send a copy or just let them worry about it themselves?
-
Thank you very much!
-
That letter only amends the mistake where they mistakenly ordered the defendant to pay the costs. It just corrects the fact that you are now owed your £313 costs by the claimant and you must be paid no later than 17th June.
The issue is still an interpretation of that order . The claimant was ordered to submit a fully particularised "CLAIM", not just rehash the original inadequate PoC by 21st May. They didn't reissue the claim. They simply sent further PoC for the original claim.
Your argument that the claim is "dead" because it was never served within 4 months of issue still stands. A new claim had to have been issued. I have amended the WS you should send as advised at 3pm tomorrow to include this argument.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
Preliminary Matter: Dead Claim and Non-Compliance with Court Order
1. This Defence is filed in compliance with the Court’s order dated 8 May 2025 and solely to preserve the Defendant’s position. The Defendant maintains that this claim is dead and cannot lawfully proceed.
2. The original claim form was issued on 7 December 2022. It was never validly served. The Court set aside the default judgment specifically on the basis that the claim form had been served at the wrong address, in breach of CPR 6.9. The Court found that the Claimant had not taken reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address prior to service and failed to engage with publicly available address verification resources, contrary to CPR 6.9(3).
3. The judgment was therefore set aside under CPR 13.2, and the Court’s order dated 8 May 2025 directed the Claimant to file and serve a fully particularised claim by 21 May 2025, failing which the claim would be struck out without further order. This required the service of a new and properly constituted claim that complies with CPR 7.4 and CPR 16.
4. The Claimant has failed to comply with that order. Rather than issuing and serving a new claim or re-serving the original claim form in compliance with CPR 6, the Claimant merely served amended Particulars of Claim, attempting to expand on a claim form that was never validly served and remains void.
5. This approach is procedurally defective. The claim form issued on 7 December 2022 is no longer capable of being served or relied upon. The Claimant did not apply for an extension of time under CPR 7.6 within the required four-month period. It is now well established — including in Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), and Croke v NatWest [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) — that a claim form not validly served within four months becomes void, and the court has no jurisdiction to revive it.
6. The Claimant's failure to comply with the 8 May order — by attempting to proceed using defective proceedings that have already been set aside — is itself a breach of that order and justifies strike-out. As no valid, fully particularised claim was served by 21 May 2025, the claim should now be considered struck out without further order.
Substantive Defence (Preserved Without Prejudice)
7. Without prejudice to the above, the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
8. The Defendant made a genuine attempt to resolve the matter and avoid further waste of court resources. A written offer was made to QDR Solicitors, stating that the Defendant would treat the matter as concluded if the Claimant complied with the Court’s order and paid the £313 in costs awarded. That offer was ignored.
9. The Defendant has attempted repeatedly to obtain clarification from the Court about whether the claim is considered live. No clarification has been received. This holding defence is filed solely to preserve the Defendant’s position and prevent any default judgment pending further direction.
10. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued long after the alleged contravention on 19 November 2017 and failed to comply with the time limits in paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. The driver has not been identified. As clarified in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the burden is on the Claimant to either show PoFA compliance or prove the identity of the driver, and they have done neither.
11. The contractual authority relied upon by the Claimant is fundamentally flawed. The documents they rely on are dated either 2014 or 2019 — years after the claimed “ticketing commencement” in 2008 and the alleged contravention in 2017. These documents are heavily redacted, unsigned in parts, and fail to show continuity of authority. It is not even clear whether the named signatory had any legal interest in the land or authority to contract with the Claimant at the material time.
12. The Particulars of Claim remain vague and generic. They do not disclose a coherent cause of action based on material facts and fail to meet the standards required under CPR 16.2 and 16.4. Despite being given a final opportunity to rectify this position, the Claimant has continued to proceed on fundamentally defective foundations.
13. The Defendant reserves the right to apply for the claim to be struck out and/or to submit a fully pleaded amended defence should the Court confirm that the claim is being allowed to proceed despite its procedural and substantive flaws.
14. The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof of their standing to issue and pursue charges at the location in their own name in 2017, their compliance with PoFA, and their right to sue the registered keeper given no admission of driving and the lack of a compliant NtK.
15. The Defendant intends to rely on correspondence with the Claimant’s legal representative in support of an application for full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the grounds of unreasonable conduct if the Claimant continues to pursue a claim that is now clearly without merit and based on defective documentation and procedure.
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:
-
Hello, just had an email from the court with the updated order:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see amended order, hard copies which have been sent out in the post today.
Furthermore, with regard to the remainder of the email chain, the court does not deal with correspondence by litigation and does not provide legal advice. The parties will need to take their own advice on the merits of making any application if they want a decision from the court.
Kind regards
And attached:
THIS ORDER HAS BEEN AMENDED UNDER THE SLIP RULE 40.12 (1)
Before District Judge Newman sitting at the County Court at Watford, Sitting At, 10 King Street, Watford,
Hertfordshire, WD18 0BW.
UPON the Claimant not attending but the Court reading its letter dated 1 May 2025 and hearing from the Defendant
in person
UPON the Court not being satisfied:
1. When the Claimant obtained the last known address of the Defendant from the DVLA, no evidence being
offered in respect of the same.
2. Noting that the PCN was issued in 2017 and the claim was not issued until 2022, that it was reasonable for
the Claimant to rely on the last known address without taking into account CPR 6.9 and the delay in issuing
proceedings
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. the Judgment against ____ dated 11 January 2023 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The Claimant must pay the Defendant's costs of £313.00 on or before 17 June 2025.
3. The Claimant must file and serve fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16 on or before 21 May
2025, failing which the claim will be struck out without further order.
4. The Defendant must file and serve (send to the Court and the Claimant) a defence on or before 4 June 2025.
Shall I still just send the defence around 3pm tomorrow? I am still confused as to whether or not the court considers that a new claim against me has been filed and served, or if it has all been struck out.
-
Will do, thank you very much.
-
If you’ve not heard anything back from the court by 3pm on 4th June, email this defence to both the court and CC in QDR and yourself before 4pm:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
2. The original claim form was issued on 7 December 2022. It was never validly served within the required four-month period under CPR 7.5(1). The Claimant did not apply for an extension under CPR 7.6. The claim became void, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to allow it to continue. This is confirmed in binding case law including Vinos v Marks & Spencer [2001], Boxwood v Gleeson [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), and Croke v NatWest [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch).
3. The Defendant successfully applied to set aside the default judgment. The Court’s order dated 8 May 2025 directed the Claimant to “file and serve a fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16” by 21 May 2025, failing which the claim would be struck out without further order. The Claimant failed to comply with that order, as it did not serve a new valid claim, but merely attempted to expand upon a claim form that was already void.
4. The Defendant made a genuine attempt to resolve the matter and avoid further waste of court resources. A written offer was made to QDR Solicitors stating that the Defendant would treat the matter as concluded if the Claimant complied with the court order and paid the £313 costs awarded for the defective claim and judgment that was set aside. That offer was ignored.
5. The Defendant has attempted repeatedly to obtain clarification from the Court about whether the claim is considered live. No clarification has been received. This holding defence is filed solely to preserve the Defendant’s position and prevent any default judgment pending the Court’s clarification.
6. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued long after the alleged contravention on 19 November 2017 and failed to comply with the time limits in paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. The driver has not been identified. As clarified in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the burden is on the Claimant to either show PoFA compliance or prove the identity of the driver, and they have done neither.
7. The contractual authority relied upon by the Claimant is hopelessly flawed. The documents they provided are dated either 2014 or 2019 — years after the claimed “ticketing commencement” in 2008 and the alleged contravention in 2017. These contracts are heavily redacted, unsigned in places, and fail to show any continuity of authority or chain of title. The signatories' positions or authority to bind their respective companies are not stated. It is also unclear whether the party signing as “client” had any legal interest in the land at the material time. These are fundamental evidential defects.
8. The Particulars of Claim remain vague and generic. They do not disclose a coherent cause of action based on material facts and fail to meet the standards required under CPR 16.2 and 16.4. Despite being invited to rectify the position following the 8 May 2025 order, the Claimant has instead attempted to proceed on defective foundations.
9. The Defendant reserves the right to apply for the claim to be struck out and/or to submit a fully pleaded amended defence should the Court confirm that the claim is being allowed to proceed despite its procedural and substantive flaws.
10. The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof of their standing to issue and pursue charges at the location in their own name in 2017, their compliance with PoFA, and their right to sue the registered keeper given no admission of driving and the lack of a compliant NtK.
11. The Defendant intends to rely on correspondence with the Claimants legal representative in support of an application for full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the grounds of unreasonable conduct if the Claimant continues to pursue a claim that is now clearly without merit and based on defective documentation and procedure.
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:
-
I'm slightly confused about whether or not I need to defend this claim (deadline next Wednesday) as I can't work out if it is currently actually a claim or not. Could anyone shed some light on this please? It's not urgent as there is still several days, I'm just a bit perplexed. Thank you! :)
-
Just had a brief email from QDR, thought I'd best post it anyway.
We write in reference to the above matter.
Our client’s position on this matter has previously been set out and we will wait to hear further from the Court, upon receipt of further directions from the Court, we will contact you accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
-
Thank you, I've sent it. :)
-
If you are happy to just accept the £313, then you could respond to QDR (not the court) with the following:
Subject: UKPC v [Your Full Name] – Claim No. [Insert] – Final Offer to Resolve and Warning on Costs
Dear Sirs,
I write to avoid further unnecessary email ping pong, which you seem intent on continuing in a futile attempt to justify a claim that is now irreparably defective.
The court order dated 8 May 2025 required your client to file and serve a fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16. Your client failed to do so. Instead, you attempted to amend and proceed under an expired and unserved claim form issued in December 2022, contrary to both CPR 7.5(1) and the order itself.
In the interest of resolving this matter proportionately and without wasting further court time, I am willing to treat the matter as concluded on the condition that the £313 costs awarded by the court are paid in full within 7 days.
Should your client refuse this offer and continue to pursue this vexatious and unreasonable claim, you are put on notice that the following fatal issues will be raised before the court, and this correspondence will be relied upon in support of an application for a full costs order due to unreasonable conduct:
Summary of Fatal Defects in the Claim:
• Failure to Serve the Original Claim Form in Time – CPR 7.5(1):
The claim form was issued in December 2022 and never validly served within 4 months. It is now void. There was no extension sought under CPR 7.6, and the court has no jurisdiction to allow it to proceed (Vinos v Marks & Spencer, Croke v NatWest, Boxwood).
• Breach of the Court’s 8 May 2025 Order:
The order required the Claimant to file and serve a fully particularised claim. They instead attempted to amend and proceed under an expired claim form. That is a clear breach, and the claim is now struck out by automatic operation of the order.
• No Keeper Liability Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
The Notice to Keeper was issued outside the 56-day deadline under Schedule 4 Paragraph 8(5) of PoFA 2012. As such, the Claimant cannot pursue the registered keeper.
• No Evidence of a Valid Contract in Place on the Date of the Alleged Contravention:
The documents relied upon are dated either 2014 or 2019, long after the claimed commencement of ticketing in 2008. The signatories' authority is unproven, and there is no valid chain of title or evidence that the entity who signed had any rights in the land at the material time in 2017.
• No Proof of Standing to Sue in Their Own Name:
The Claimant has provided no credible evidence that they were authorised to pursue parking charges in their own name in civil proceedings at the time of the alleged incident.
• Failure to Comply with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 Requirements for Particulars of Claim:
The amended PoC remains vague and generic, lacks material facts, and fails to provide a coherent basis for liability.
Warning on Costs for Unreasonable Conduct:
If your client chooses to persist with this vexatious and legally defective claim despite being on clear notice of its fatal flaws, all of the above will be presented to the court as evidence of unreasonable conduct.
This correspondence will be placed before the court in support of a request for:
• Strike-out, and
• Costs beyond the fixed limit, under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and the White Book annotation 38.6.1 (where a party continues a claim that is clearly without merit, or behaves unreasonably after being warned).
This is an open letter and will be placed before the court as part of my defence and any subsequent application for strike-out and costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Otherwise, just wait for a response from the court and, if necessary let us know a few days before the defence submission deadline so that we can provide the necessary amended defence.
-
Just in!
Dear Sirs,
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED -v- ______________
Claim Number:
Our Reference:
We write in reference to the above matter.
In response to the points raised by the Defendant, the Claimant notes that the order dated 8 May 2025, received on 21 May 2025 does not order that a new Claim be issued, but that detailed particulars be filed in accordance with CPR 16. The Claimant has filed these particulars and notes that in this case, filing and serving a new Claim would be an abuse of process.
With regard to the Defendant’s point that the Claim Form was not served within the 4-month period required, it is noted that the Claim was submitted on MCOL on 6 December 2022 and that the Claim Form was issued on 7 December 2022. We further note that the Court would be responsible for serving the Claim Form after this timeframe and so if there is an issue with the service, would refer this point to the Court.
We have attached our email sent yesterday including the Detailed Particulars of Claim and await further directions from the Court as to how this matter will proceed, as well as confirmation with regard to the costs, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the order as mentioned below by the Defendant and our prior correspondence.
Should you require any further information, please contact us on 01926 758 731.
Yours faithfully,
-
I therefore request that the court correct the slip in paragraph 2 under CPR 40.12, so that it reads:
“The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of £303 on or before 21 May 2025.”
Should this not be £313?
-
The way they go about things is extraordinary. I get that parking needs to be managed somehow but the way they conduct themselves is tantamount to abuse. I'll never forget my poor old dad coming over to visit us, miffed that he couldn't pay for the fish & chips because a similar company in Reading upheld his parking charge despite the pay machine being busted. I said "why did you pay it?" he said "Cos I had to". They masquerade as the law and terrorise innocent people. Vile trade altogether, there has to be a fairer way.
-
Trust me, this is going to be entertaining to watch how these parasites dig themselves deeper into a hole they cannot extricate themselves from.
You'll get your £313 and, if they continue down this path, you'll be able to add further costs for their unreasonable behaviour.
-
Thank you as always for your help, I'm so grateful. These people are making me ill.
-
The signage photo on the particulars of claim is ludicrous too, it shows no context as to where it actually is. Wrong make of car, since 2017 I've moved house, had a child, lost both my parents, had a nervous breakdown and about 8 different cars, I have no idea who parked that car there on that day. None of this supposed correspondence has ever reached me and my first glance at the particulars was yesterday. I can't even begin to understand the legislation regarding that wide unmarked multi-bay parking area. The wording appears to relate to the main car park with marked bays but who knows. I do know that area and that bay the car was parked in has always been a place where people park to pop quickly to the local shop.
-
And even better...
There are serious problems and issues with the contractual documents provided by UKPC in their amended Particulars of Claim. These relate to their alleged authority to operate and issue PCNs at Parkhouse Court as of 19 November 2017, the date of the alleged contravention:
1. No Document Dated 2017 (or Earlier)
• There is no evidence of a contract or landowner agreement in place at the time of the alleged contravention on 19 November 2017.
• The only document shown in the PoC is a letter from Ian Gibbs Chartered Surveyors dated 16 May 2019 — that is 18 months after the incident.
Therefore, there is no proof that UKPC had the authority to issue PCNs at that site on the material date.
2. Post-Event Letter, Not a Formal Contract
The 2019 letter (Appendix A) is not a formal contract, does not name the landowner, and merely states in general terms that UKPC is “authorised by Hatfield District Estate Management Company Ltd c/o Ian Gibbs.”
It provides no detail about:
• When the authorisation began;
• The contractual terms;
• The duration of the agreement;
• Who signed it on behalf of the landowner;
• Any reference to 2017 or retroactive coverage.
3. Letter is Unfit to Prove Contractual Standing
For a private parking company to pursue a PCN in court, they must show a valid written agreement in place on the date of the alleged contravention.
This 2019 letter:
• Appears to have been created for litigation purposes (likely on request by UKPC);
• Does not confirm the agreement was retrospective;
• Contains no reference to contractual rights in 2017.
4. Fails to Comply with the Code of Practice
Under the BPA Code of Practice (in force in 2017), Section 7.1 required:
“You must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent before you can carry out any parking control and enforcement.”
The authorisation must be available on request and must:
• Include the date it commenced;
• Be signed;
• Clearly define the operator’s powers.
The letter from Ian Gibbs does none of this.
5. Appendix A is Misleading
The PoC describes Appendix A as “the letter from the landowner’s agent confirming our authority to operate at the site,” but:
• It is not signed by the landowner;
• It does not contain contract terms;
• It is dated May 2019, which undermines any claim of prior authority.
6. No Site Plan, Schedule, or Signature Page
A proper contract or licence agreement should contain:
• The full names of both parties;
• A clear site plan showing the land covered;
• A schedule of commencement/expiry dates;
• Signatures from both parties;
• Specific reference to PCN enforcement rights.
None of these have been provided.
Conclusion: Major Evidential Gaps
The documents provided:
• Do not prove that UKPC had any valid contract or authority at the location in 2017;
• Are legally insufficient to establish contractual standing to pursue the PCN;
• Should not be accepted by the court as evidence of authority.
If this does have to be defended again, you will be asking for further costs sue to clear unreasonable behaviour by the claimant and their useless solicitors.
-
Looking at their further PoC, I note that the NtD was issued on 19/11/2017 and the NtK issued on 12/01/2018. The driver has not been identified.
Something to use for the defence is no Keeper liability. When a Notice to Driver (NtD) is given (e.g. a windscreen ticket), PoFA requires that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be delivered:
"Not less than 28 days after, and not more than 56 days after, the vehicle was parked."
In this case:
• Date of alleged contravention (NtD issued): 19 November 2017
• Date NtK issued: 12 January 2018
Let’s check the number of days between:
• From 19 November 2017 to 12 January 2018 = 54 days
That falls within the 28–56 day window, so at first glance, it looks compliant.
BUT… it is "delivery", not just issue date that counts. PoFA doesn’t say “issued.” It says the NtK must be given (delivered) within 56 days — and “delivered” means actually received, or deemed received (typically 2 working days after posting, per PoFA and Interpretation Act).
If the NtK was posted (issued) on 12 January 2018 (a Friday), it would be deemed delivered on Tuesday 16 January 2018 (assuming normal post and no bank holidays).
That would be 58 days after the 19 November 2017 contravention — outside the 56-day PoFA deadline.
Conclusion:
Unless the Claimant can prove the NtK was delivered on or before 14 January 2018, (they can't) they missed the 56-day deadline under PoFA.
So the NtK is non-compliant with Schedule 4 Paragraph 8(5), and they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.
Not that they are claiming Keeper liability under PoFA anyway!
This just gets better and better.
-
Done, thank you!
-
Immediately send the following to the court by email to enquiries.watford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC in QDR and yourself making sure you put the claim number and the words "URGENT" in the subject field:
To: Watford County Court
10 King Street
Watford
WD18 0BW
To: enquiries.watford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
Date: [Insert Today’s Date]
Claim No: [Insert Claim Number]
Parties: UK Parking Control Ltd v [Your Full Name]
Subject: URGENT Clarification – Claimant’s Non-Compliance with Paragraph 3 of the Order dated 8 May 2025 and Correction of Costs Error in Paragraph 2
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write urgently regarding the order made by District Judge Newman on 8 May 2025, following the hearing of my application to set aside the default judgment.
1. The Claimant has not complied with Paragraph 3 of the Order
Paragraph 3 of the order stated:
“The Claimant must file and serve fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16 on or before 21 May 2025, failing which the claim will be struck out without further order.”
The Claimant has not filed or served a fully particularised claim. On 21st May 2025, I received by email from QDR Solicitors a document purporting to be “Particulars of Claim” served under the original claim number issued in December 2022. They did not file or serve a new claim as the court ordered. This action amounts to a transparent attempt to continue defective proceedings by merely issuing updated PoC under an already expired claim form.
As the court will be aware:
• CPR 16.2 and 16.3 require that a valid claim consist of a properly filed and served claim form, including a concise statement of the nature of the claim and a statement of value.
• No such claim has been filed or served.
• The original claim form, issued in December 2022, was never served within the 4-month period required by CPR 7.5(1), and no extension was applied for under CPR 7.6.
It is trite law that failure to serve a claim within 4 months of issue renders it void and incapable of revival (see Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001], Croke v NatWest [2022], Piepenbrock [2020], and Boxwood [2021]).
I therefore request that the court confirm:
• The Claimant did not comply with paragraph 3 of the 8 May 2025 order;
• The claim is now struck out automatically without further order;
• No defence is required to be filed against a claim that no longer legally exists.
2. Paragraph 2 of the Order Requires Correction (Slip Rule – CPR 40.12)
Paragraph 2 of the same order currently reads:
“The Defendant must pay the Claimant’s costs of £313 on or before 21 May 2025.”
This is plainly incorrect. The order made at the hearing was that the Claimant pay the Defendant £313, as recorded in the judgment notes and confirmed by both parties. QDR Solicitors have acknowledged this error in writing.
I therefore request that the court correct the slip in paragraph 2 under CPR 40.12, so that it reads:
“The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of £303 on or before 21 May 2025.”
I would be grateful for an urgent response, as I am being placed under pressure to file a defence against what I firmly submit is now a void claim. The situation requires immediate judicial clarification.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
If there is no response or clarification a few days before the amended defence deadline, remind us and an amended defence will be provided.
-
File attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just show us what they have sent. If it’s a large document then host it on Dropbox or google drive.
They are just playing for time. A new claim cannot bi filed if more than 6 years have passed since the date of the alleged contravention.
-
Just had an email back:
Dear Sirs,
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED -v- _________
Claim Number: _________
Our Reference: _________
We write in reference to the above matter.
Please note, we have received a call from the Defendant today advising of the Outcome of the Hearing which took place on 7 May 2025, who also provided a copy of the order, which we are advised that the Defendant received today. Please note that we have copied the Defendant in by way of an update.
We confirm that we have also received a copy of the Order dated 8 May 2025, also only received today, a copy of which has been attached.
Firstly, we note what appears to be an error in the order, paragraph 2 of the order states that ‘The Defendant must pay the Claimant’s costs of £313 on or before 21 May 2025.’ The Defendant has advised us that at the Hearing it was ordered that the Claimant must pay the Defendant in the sum of £313.00. We kindly ask for an amended order which confirms which party is to pay the other party, so that this can be complied with.
The Claimant also notes, that as per paragraph 3, ‘The Claimant must file and serve fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16 on or before 21 May 2025, failing which the claim will be struck out wihtou [sic] further order.’ It is noted that the order was received by QDR today and that we are instructed by the Defendant that their copy of the order was only received, today. Given the late receipt of this document, the Claimant has endeavoured to complete this within the necessary timeframe, as such please find a copy of the fully particularised Claim in the form of detailed Particulars of Claim attached with this email.
As such we kindly ask the court to provide an updated order, confirming if paragraph 2 is in error and whom is to the £313.00 to which party, furthermore, we kindly await directions regarding the Claim.
Should you require any further information, please contact us on 01926 758 731.
Yours faithfully,
So they're trying to re-serve the claim today via email. There is an attachment with the particulars of the old claim just with today's date on.
It shows a Peugeot car parked apparently not within the markings of a bay, but there are no markings, it is a wide unmarked bay for multiple cars. The claim also names the car as a Ford, which it is not. Should I post all of these particulars or is it not worth it at this stage?
-
I've re-sent the email with the costs corrected. Thank you!
-
Subject: URGENT – Outstanding £303 Costs Payment – UKPC v [Your Full Name] – Claim No: [INSERT]
Is it not £313? (I realise it's only a tenner, but still...)
2. The Defendant must pay the Claimant's costs of £313 on or before 21 May 2025.
-
Amazing, thanks a million! All done.
-
Good questions.
1. QDR can try to claim they didn’t receive it in time — but:
• The order was made and sealed on 8 May 2025.
• The court’s deadlines are counted from the date of the order, not from when the party opens their post.
• The court is not obliged to give them more time just because they say “we didn’t receive it.”
• If they ask for relief from sanctions (an extension), they’d have to file an application with a very good reason for missing the deadline — and simply claiming “we didn’t see it in time” probably won’t be enough, especially when:
•They were a party to the case.
• They knew a judgment was coming.
• You got your copy, so theirs would have been posted around the same time.
• The court can refuse to grant them any extension and allow the strike-out to stand.
2. Would a new claim be statute barred? Very likely - yes:
• The alleged parking event was in 2017.
• The Limitation Act 1980 says that claims based on a simple contract (like a private parking charge) must be started within 6 years of the event.
• They issued the first claim in December 2022, just before that 6-year deadline.
• But if that claim has now failed (struck out), and they try to start a brand-new one now, it would be too late — more than 6 years has passed.
• There’s no ‘pause’ or reset for limitation just because they messed up the first time.
So yes, if they try to start from scratch, you would have a strong defence: “This claim is statute-barred.”
3. Did You Accidentally Give Them a Chance to Re-Serve in Time?
No, you didn’t:
• The order clearly stated:
“The Claimant must file and serve fully particularised claim on or before 21 May 2025.”
• That means it had to be done by 21 May, not just "start thinking about it" or "ask for an extension."
• Sending them an email today doesn’t change that. They were under a court order.
• If they ignored it, that’s their own fault.
• If they now try to rush something through after the deadline because you emailed them about the costs, it won’t help them — the deadline has already passed.
Conclusion:
• They missed the deadline.
• The claim is now struck out.
• They owe you £303.
• They cannot reissue the same claim now without it being statute-barred.
• You did not help them by contacting them — they already blew their chance.
So: deep breath. You're in a solid position. Let them try — you'll win if they do.
In the meantime, you should email QDR at enquiries@qdrsolicitors.com and CC in yourself. I would also suggest you CC in UKPC at complaints@ukparkingcontrol.com, just so as they are aware of the debt they owe, with the following:
Subject: URGENT – Outstanding £303 Costs Payment – UKPC v [Your Full Name] – Claim No: [INSERT]
To: QDR Solicitors
CC: UK Parking COntrol Ltd
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the order of District Judge Newman dated 8 May 2025 in the above matter, which required your client, UK Parking Control Ltd, to pay me £303 in costs on or before 21 May 2025.
As of today's date, this payment remains outstanding, and no communication has been received from you regarding any delay or issue.
Please treat this email as a Letter of Claim. If full payment of £303 is not received within 7 days from the date of this email, I will proceed to enforce the debt without further notice. This may include applying for a Warrant of Control through the court and instructing enforcement officers (bailiffs), which could increase the amount recoverable from your client.
Payment should be made immediately. If you believe there is any valid reason for non-payment, you must respond in writing within the same timeframe.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
-
Well, two weeks have passed and no new claim sent through. The time limit of my costs being sent to me also expires today so I called QDR to see why, and they claim to have had no correspondence from the court.
I received mine today, the wording is below. Incidentally, I note that the court has got the words 'defendant' and 'claimant' the wrong way around in the sentence about costs.
Before District Judge Newman sitting at the County Court at Watford, Sitting At, 10 King Street, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 0BW
Upon the Claimant not attending but the Court reading its letter dated 1 May 2025 and hearing from the Defendant in person
Upon the Court not being satisfied:
1. When the Claimant obtained the last known address of the Defendant from the DVLA, no evidence being offered in respect of the same.
2. Noting that the PCN was issued in 2017 and the claim was not issued until 2022, that it was reasonable for the Claimant to rely on the
last known address without taking into account CPR 6.9 and the delay in issuing proceedings
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. the judgment against ______ dated 11 January 2023 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The Defendant must pay the Claimant's costs of £313 on or before 21 May 2025.
3. The Claimant must file and serve fully particularised claim in accordance with CPR 16 on or before 21 May 2025, failing which the
claim will be struck out without further order.
4. The Defendant must file and serve (send to the Court and the Claimant) a defence on or before 4 June 2025.
Just a couple of questions:
Can QDR claim they didn't receive the court order letter then ask for more time?
If they do, and then file a new claim, would this claim now be statute barred due to the 8 years that have now elapsed?
Also, have I now inadvertently given QDR a chance to hastily file a new claim within time by giving them a heads up when asking for my costs to be sent to me? The order says on or before today's date.
-
She listened to my reasons regarding that but just said something like "Unfortunately I can't strike it out". I wasn't sure whether to ask her to elaborate on it or not but she seemed to be on my side so I just took her word for it.
-
What did the judge say about the claim should be struck out because it has not been served within 4 months?
I bet they discontinue.
-
The CCJ was set aside and UKPC were ordered to pay my £303 costs. UKPC have two weeks to serve the claim at my proper address, if they fail to do so within this time the entire claim will be automatically struck out.
Thank you very much, I'm so grateful for all your help.
-
Understood, thanks so much!
-
QDR’s latest letter says they agree to the set aside but only if there’s no order for costs – meaning they don’t want to pay you back for the £303 N244 application fee you had to spend fixing their mistake.
They’ve also said they won’t bother turning up to the hearing, and it looks like they’ve sent a copy of this letter to the court.
This is a tactic. They are trying to make it look like everything is now agreed between both sides — including the part about no costs — in the hope that the judge won’t question it.
To be clear: you do NOT agree to what they are trying to pull. You’ve never agreed to give up your right to costs. In fact, you already told them clearly that they caused this mess, and unless they agreed to strike out the claim and repay your court fee, you would go to the hearing.
They ignored that, and now they’re trying to pretend you’re both on the same page. You’re not.
Subject: Re: UK Parking Control v [Your Name] – Claim No. [insert number]
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your recent letter regarding the above matter, in which you state that the Claimant consents to the setting aside of judgment provided there is no order as to costs.
To be absolutely clear: I do not agree to the Claimant’s proposal, nor have I ever consented to any such condition. Your client had the opportunity to resolve this matter fairly by reimbursing the application fee and striking out the claim. Instead, it chose to force the matter to a hearing and now seeks to avoid accountability for its actions.
Given your stated intention not to attend the hearing, and the possibility that the court may be misled into believing that agreement has been reached, I will ensure that a copy of this correspondence is submitted to the court to make my position clear: there is no agreement between the parties.
I will attend the hearing and ask the court to:
• Set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2 or 13.3;
• Strike out the claim as invalid due to failure of service within the CPR 7.5 time limit; and
• Award the full costs of my application, which were caused solely by your client’s conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
At the hearing, you need to make it absolutely clear to the judge that:
• You do not agree to QDR’s conditions.
• You have never consented to their proposal or to any “no order as to costs.”
• You want the judgment set aside, the claim struck out, and your application fee fully reimbursed because of the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct.
Take a printed copy of their email/letter and your earlier reply that rejected their offer — so the judge can see for themselves that this “agreement” is one-sided and misleading.
They’re trying to fool the court into thinking the whole thing is sorted — but it isn’t. Make that crystal clear at the hearing, and let the judge deal with them. They’ve made this mess. Let them pay for it.
At the hearing, calmly but firmly tell the judge:
"I respectfully request my full application fee be awarded as costs. The Claimant served the claim to an outdated address without checking public records like the electoral roll. Their failure to carry out reasonable diligence forced me to apply to set aside a default judgment I knew nothing about. Despite being aware of their error, they refused to resolve it unless I paid them to do so. They only consented after I rejected that demand, and they’re now avoiding the hearing altogether. I’ve acted promptly and properly, and I respectfully submit that the Claimant should bear the cost of putting this right."
And if the judge asks about your position on the claim itself?
"I also ask that the claim be struck out. It was not validly served within the four-month period under CPR 7.5(1), and as such, it is no longer valid. The court has no jurisdiction to allow it to continue."
You're in the right — legally and morally. Don’t let them off the hook. They've wasted your time, damaged your credit, and now they’re trying to wriggle out of paying even a penny to fix it. Make sure they feel it.
-
Oh apologies! I've edited them back in.
-
I am not even going to bother reading this unless you stop redacting any dates!!!
-
Their response is in:
Dear Sirs
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED -v- ********
Claim Number: *******
Our Reference: ******
We refer to the Defendant’s Application to Set Aside Judgment dated 5 September 2024. We note
that a hearing has been listed on 7 May 2025 at 15:30pm
By way of background, the Defendant was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) for a
contravention that occurred on 19 November 2017 due to the Defendant’s vehicle (“the Vehicle”)
not being parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
The PCN remained unpaid and subsequently, the Claim was issued to (OLD ADDRESS), the last known address of the Defendant on 7 December
2022. As no response was received, Judgment in Default was granted in the sum of £267.00 on 11
January 2023.
The Defendant states in their application that the Claim was not served at the correct address
and that they have been sent to the Defendant’s previous address which was vacated in 2020.
They state that this should have been realised by the Claimant as they were on the open
electoral roll at their new address and that the Defendant believes that the claimant made no
attempt to verify their correct address.
With regard to the above it is noted that the Claimant was provided with the last know address
of the Defendant by the DVLA and consequently the Claim was issued at the last know address
of the Defendant as per CPR 6.9 and the Claimant maintains that the Claim was served
correctly.
When considering the above, the Claimant consents to the Defendant’s Application provided there
is no order as to costs. In order to save costs, the Claimant does not intend on arranging
representation at the hearing. No disrespect is intended by the Claimant’s non-attendance at the
hearing.
We would be grateful if a copy of this letter and email could be placed on the Court file prior to
the Hearing.
If the Court has any queries in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us on the
details below.
Yours faithfully,
QDR
Should I accept? :)
-
Done. Fantastic, thank you!
-
The letter from QDR Solicitors means that the parking company is now offering to agree to your request to set aside the CCJ (County Court Judgment), but only if you agree to pay the court fee of £123 for them to file a “Consent Order” – a legal document that both parties agree on. They are also asking whether you plan to pay the original charge (£255) or defend the case if the judgment is removed.
Here’s what they’re really trying to do:
They know your application to set aside the CCJ is strong. The judgment was made without properly serving the claim to your correct address, which means the court should automatically set it aside under the rules. They also know that more than 4 months passed without valid service, which makes the claim “dead” and the court may strike it out completely. If this happens at the hearing, you won’t owe anything and they will most likely have to repay your £303 set aside fee.
By offering a Consent Order, they’re trying to:
• Avoid the risk of losing in court.
• Avoid having to pay your costs.
• Possibly still get money out of you, either the £123 court fee or the original £255 charge.
You don’t have to (and shouldn't) accept this offer. If you go to the hearing, the judge is very likely to set aside the judgment anyway, and probably strike out the whole claim. You’re also more likely to get your £303 application fee back that way.
So, your options are:
1. Accept the offer and pay the £123, which gets the judgment set aside quickly but may still leave the original claim alive for you to pay or defend.
2. Ask them to cover the court fee and agree to cancel the whole claim. This is only worth doing if they agree in writing to drop the claim and pay your £303 application fee.
3. Reject the offer and attend the hearing. This is the recommended option. You have a strong case, and the court is likely to rule in your favour, set aside the judgment, and probably strike out the claim completely, with no cost to you.
I suggest you respond with the following:
Subject: Re: Proposed Consent Order – Claim No. [insert number]
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your offer to file a Consent Order to set aside the default judgment in this matter.
Given that the claim was never validly served in accordance with CPR 6.9, and that more than four months passed from issue without valid service, the judgment was irregularly obtained. Therefore, the court is obliged to set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2. Further, as you are no longer entitled to continue the claim due to the expiry of the service window under CPR 7.5(1), the claim is now void and liable to be struck out.
I respectfully decline to bear the court fee for a Consent Order. I am confident the court will grant my application and award costs against the Claimant, given the procedural failures involved. However, should the Claimant wish to resolve this matter without the need for a hearing, I would be willing to consider a Consent Order:
1. Where the Claimant agrees to pay the £123 fee to file the Consent Order; and
2. The claim is struck out and the judgment set aside with no further proceedings; and
3. The Claimant pays my £303 application fee in full.
Should I not hear further, I will proceed to the scheduled hearing and reserve my position in respect of costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
-
Court time has almost come around (quicker than I thought).
I decided to just wait for the hearing in the end, but really appreciate all your advice.
I have just had an email though from QDR:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS.
Dear *********
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED -v- *********
Claim Number: *******
Our Reference: *******
We write in reference to the above matter.
We confirm that having reviewed your application to have the Judgment set aside, that the Claimant is willing to Consent to your application via a Consent Order. Within this order it would be agreed by both parties for the Judgment to be Set Aside, however, there is a cost associated with filing this with the Court. The Claimant would request that you bear the cost of the court filing fee of £123.00 to file the Consent Order with the Court. Please note that it is ultimately for the court to approve and to seal the Consent Order.
Should you be in agreement, we can draft the proposed Consent Order for your review, we will also include our bank details in the event that you wish to proceed with a Consent Order.
We note that there is still an outstanding balance for this matter in the sum of £267.00, should this be set aside, the balance would revert to £255.00 as the £22.00 Judgment cost would be removed. We kindly ask whether you intend to make payment of the outstanding balance or whether you wish to Defendant the claim should the Judgment be set aside.
We kindly await your response to the Claimant’s offer regarding the proposed Consent Order and whether you intend to Defend or pay the Claim in the event that Judgment is set aside.
Should you require any further information, please contact us on 01926 758 731.
Yours faithfully,
QDR Solicitors Limited
T: 01926 758 731
defended.team@qdrsolicitors.com
I kinda get what they are suggesting but am unsure what I should accept and how to play it. My intentions would be to defend the claim. A bit confused about it being set aside yet still having to defend it. Please could you advise? Many thanks as always.
-
That's fantastic thanks so much for all that, very much appreciated. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji120.png)
-
The court’s response suggests they are stretched thin, so even a formal application may face resistance unless you can show that another court can genuinely accommodate the hearing sooner
Moving the claim to a different court location might be a worthwhile option if you can demonstrate that another court has shorter wait times and would be able to accommodate an earlier hearing date. However, such a request would also typically require a formal application and sufficient justification. A formal application will incur an additional fee (unless you qualify for help with fees). Consider whether the benefits outweigh the costs and effort involved. Are you eligible for help with fees?
You'd need to research nearby county courts to determine whether they have shorter listing times for hearings. Contact their court offices to inquire about their current availability for hearings of this type. If another court can hear the case sooner, you'd need to file a formal application (using form N244) to request that the claim be transferred to that court. In the application, you'd need to provide:
• Evidence of the current court’s delay and the severe impact this has on your financial and personal circumstances.
• Evidence that another court can hear the matter sooner.
• Reference to CPR 30.3, which allows for transfer of proceedings if it would better serve the overriding objective of handling cases expeditiously and fairly.
If you proceed with a formal application, include updated evidence of the financial and practical hardships caused by the delay, such as:
• Credit report showing the impact of the CCJ.
• Evidence of housing or employment challenges.
• Correspondence with creditors demonstrating financial difficulties.
You could write to the Designated Civil Judge (DCJ) to highlight the unreasonable delay and its disproportionate impact, requesting their intervention. For Watford, His Honour Judge Stephen Murch, is the senior judge responsible for overseeing court administration. You want to request his intervention in expediting your hearing.
This approach is informal compared to filing a formal application, and while it is not guaranteed to succeed, it could result in a case being prioritised or reviewed, especially in situations of significant hardship or systemic delays. Any letter should be formal, concise, and respectful, focusing on the exceptional circumstances that justify the need for intervention. You'd need to include the following elements:
a. Case Information
• Your name and contact information.
• The claim number.
• The court where the hearing is currently listed (e.g., Watford County Court).
• The date of the scheduled hearing.
b. The Delay and Its Impact
Highlight the significant delay (e.g., hearing set for eight months from now) and explain how this adversely impacts you, including:
• Financial hardship (e.g., restricted access to credit, housing, and employment opportunities due to the CCJ).
• Procedural injustice (e.g., improper service of the claim leading to the default judgment).
• Emotional distress and other adverse consequences.
c. Request for Intervention
Explain why an expedited hearing is necessary and ask for the judge’s intervention. You may request:
• A review of the case to prioritise an earlier hearing date.
• A directive to reassign the claim to another judge or court that can hear the matter sooner.
d. Emphasise the Overriding Objective
Reference CPR 1.1, which requires cases to be handled fairly, expeditiously, and proportionately. Argue that an eight-month delay undermines this principle and your right to prompt access to justice.
e. Supporting Evidence
Attach any relevant documentation, such as:
• A copy of the court’s hearing notice showing the scheduled date.
• Evidence of improper service (e.g., proof of your updated address and when it was provided to the claimant).
• Evidence of financial hardship (e.g., credit report, correspondence with creditors or landlords, proof of rejected job applications due to the CCJ).
-
Hello all,
I got this through today:
Good morning
Thank you for your email.
As my colleague stated in his email, any change to a hearing date requires a formal application.
The date given for hearing the application to set aside judgment was the earliest date available at the time of booking. We are currently listing hearings in July 2024 so any change to date is likely to be heard later. The court does not have capacity to bring any hearings forward.
Is it worth going through requesting an adjournment right away or should I hang on and see what UKPC and their solicitors say first?
-
Thank you very much, will do now.
-
I see now, it was in response to the request for the hearing to be brought forward. If you are eligible for help with the fees, then you will just have to go through the application process. However, I suggest you respond to the letter received with the following:
Court Manager
Watford County Court
10 King Street
Watford
WD18 0BW
[Date]
RE: Request for Clarification on Urgent Hearing Rescheduling and Response to Court's Reply
Claim Number: [Insert Claim Number]
Defendant: [Your Full Name]
Dear Court Manager,
I acknowledge receipt of your response dated [insert response date] regarding my request for an urgent rescheduling of my set aside hearing. However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding of my original request, as the response focused on the process for adjournment or formal applications, which was not the nature of my inquiry.
To clarify, my request was not for an adjournment or delay but rather an expedited hearing date due to significant financial hardship caused by the CCJ, which was obtained through improper service. I respectfully reiterate the following key points for reconsideration:
1. Financial Hardship and Impact: The delay in the hearing date is causing ongoing and severe financial distress. The CCJ, noted on my credit report since [insert date], has substantially affected my credit rating, restricted my access to credit, and adversely impacted my housing and employment prospects.
2. Overriding Objective: CPR 1.1 mandates that cases are handled fairly, expeditiously, and proportionately. The current timeline for the hearing—scheduled for nearly eight months from now—does not align with this objective. A hearing scheduled so far into the future effectively nullifies the expectation that a defendant acts promptly upon discovering a default judgment.
3. Improper Service: I have provided evidence demonstrating that the claim was not properly served, as the claimant did not comply with CPR 6.9 and failed to make reasonable efforts to verify my current address.
I appreciate that the court must operate impartially and within procedural limits, but given the financial repercussions and the nature of the procedural irregularities in this case, I am requesting that the court considers scheduling an earlier hearing. This request is not to delay but to seek relief from the current hardship that the delayed hearing is perpetuating.
I am prepared to provide additional documentation or submit a formal application if absolutely necessary. However, I am seeking clarification on whether my initial request for an expedited hearing can be reconsidered based on the merits outlined, without needing to file a formal application.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response or guidance on how to proceed in the interest of fairness and efficiency.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Defendant
-
Did you request an adjournment?
-
Hello there,
Just a quick update, had this email through today from the court:
Good morning
If you wish to adjourn the hearing then you either submit a formal application or file a Consent Order.
If the Consent Order is made with the written consent and signed by all parties to the agreement more than 14 days before the scheduled hearing date there no fee is payable. If it is less than 14 days then the fee is £119.00
If you cannot get consent then you will need to submit a formal application [N244 Application Notice] which can be obtained from the website https://www.gov.uk/ and should be posted in triplicate. The fee is £303.00 if you tick the box with a hearing or £119.00 if you wish the judge to consider your application on papers.
Once we are in receipt of your application / consent order it will be referred to the Judge for consideration.
Please note an application itself does not guarantee your request will be automatically granted. It will be under the Judge to review it, consider it and review any supporting evidence you supply.
Therefore, it will be your interest to seek qualified independent advice before you submit any application to the Court because court fees are non-refundable.
The fee can be paid via the following methods:
By cheque or postal order, which should be made payable to 'HMCTS';
By credit/debit card. If you wish to pay by credit/debit card, please provide the Court with a telephone number in a covering letter, which should state you wish to pay by card, when you submit your application. A member of staff will then contact you to take payment. The Court can take card payments between 10am and 4pm, Monday to Friday.
If you are on benefits or low income you may be eligible for help with fees please see How to apply for help with fees EX160a www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-help-with-court-and-tribunal-fees/how-to-apply-for-help-with-fees-ex160a
If you are uncertain how to proceed, you should seek professional legal advice. You may be able to obtain free legal advice from a Legal Advice Agency or the Citizens Advice Bureau
Court Officers are not able to provide legal advice, suggest a course of action, or provide a solution to a problem. Court Officers do not receive legal training, and have no qualifications in law. Further, the Court must remain impartial. You may wish to read www.advicenow.org.uk.
Just a bit unsure how best to proceed (as usual!) and any advice would be much appreciated.
Many thanks!
-
No I will do that now.
-
Have you sent a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO at QDR instructing them to rectify the address they hold for service of documents to your current address and to erase your old address?
Do the same with the claimant.
-
Just had a thought, should I now be expecting all the info from the initial claim from QDR to be sent to my new address soon? Even though there's plenty of time I'd quite like to see it.
-
Thanks very much!
-
If the claim is not struck out at the set aside, there will be ample time to put together a full defence/WS.
-
No I've never even conversed with them.
-
THE DEFENDANT WAS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE DATE AND TIME OF THE CONTRAVENTION.
Did you ever state you were the driver or are they being cheeky here?
-
That was the entire email with the case number and reg etc removed, no attachments.
It was entitled 'Particulars of Claim'.
-
THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM IS FOR AN OUTSTANDING PARKING CHARGE ISSUED TO VEHICLE ------- WHENPARKED AT PARKHOUSE COURT HATFIELD HERTFORDSHIRE AL10 9QZ. THE SITE IS MANAGED BY THE CLAIMANT. VEHICLES PARKING AT THE SITEARE SUBJECT TO THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE SET OUT ON SIGNS AT THE SITE WHICH FORM PART OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND THE CLAIMANT THE CONTRACT. ON 19 11 2017,THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT THE SITE IN BREACH OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRAVENTION BEING NOT PARKED CORRECTLY WITHIN THE MARKINGS OF THE BAY OR SPACE.. THE DEFENDANT WAS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE DATE AND TIME OF THE CONTRAVENTION. BY ACTING IN BREACH OF THE CONTRACT, THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGESAS SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT, BEING THE SUM OF £160.00 PLUS ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL CHARGES INCURRED BY THE CLAIMANT AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANTS BREACH.
-
Can you show us exactly what they emailed across to you (personal info redacted of course)?
-
That was what I asked for but only a summary was sent. Just an email summary. I wasn't sure if that was what I was supposed to be sent but I'd ended the call by the time I checked anyway.
-
Did you ask for the PoC to be emailed to you? We need to see exactly what the PoC state, not a summary.
-
Called court this morning...it is/was QDR acting for UKPC, so have forwarded everything on to their 'defended team' email in their letter.
The particulars of the claim are apparently for not parking correctly within the (free for one hour) car park markings of a car park near Aldi in Hatfield.
Again, I have zero recollection of ever having done this, nor could I even begin to trace back my steps on a random day 7 years ago. I do know the car park in question as it is local to me.
To think that a CCJ resulted in something like a wheel not being quite lined up properly in a free car park with loads of spaces seems utterly ridiculous.
Anyway, I have emailed everything to QDR, which includes the evidence of my new address which they requested. :)
-
I suspect that it will be DCB Legal acting for UKPC. When you have it confirmed, you must send a copy of anything you send to the court to them.
-
Did you copy in QDR when you sent the SWS and draft order? If not, you need to copy in the claimants solicitor.
I'm just a bit surprised that UKPC are using QDR. They normally only tend to act as debt collectors. When you contacted the CNBC to find out the details of the CCJ, did they tell you who was acting for the claimant?
It is probably worth phoning the CNBC and asking them who was representing the claimant in the N1SDT claim? Also, whilst you have them on the phone, ask them to email you the Particulars of Claim (PoC). You will probably have to wait a long time on hold with the CNBC. If necessary, you can call first thing in the morning around 8:30am as you'll probably have less of a wait.
Sorry I missed your other questions as I was out and reading on my phone, I didn't copy QDR in, nor did I know they were acting for UKPC. I was only told about UKPC when I called the court initially, no other info was given. Will request all that tomorrow. Thanks as always!
-
Thank you very much, Will do that first thing in the morning!
-
Did you copy in QDR when you sent the SWS and draft order? If not, you need to copy in the claimants solicitor.
I'm just a bit surprised that UKPC are using QDR. They normally only tend to act as debt collectors. When you contacted the CNBC to find out the details of the CCJ, did they tell you who was acting for the claimant?
It is probably worth phoning the CNBC and asking them who was representing the claimant in the N1SDT claim? Also, whilst you have them on the phone, ask them to email you the Particulars of Claim (PoC). You will probably have to wait a long time on hold with the CNBC. If necessary, you can call first thing in the morning around 8:30am as you'll probably have less of a wait.
-
What "proof" of change of address do you intend to provide them? An initial utility bill from after your move or a lease agreement or confirmation of a sale of property would do.
However, much more importantly, have you sent off the recommended letter and SWS and draft order?
What you have to extremely careful of is QDR offering to agree to the set aside and then discontinuing, leaving you out of pocket for the N244 application fee. You need to stay in this to be able to recoup your N244 fee.
I have sent off the letter, SWS and draft order.
I was intending to send QDR the same copy of my tenancy agreement from 2020. I am sending you a PM.
-
What "proof" of change of address do you intend to provide them? An initial utility bill from after your move or a lease agreement or confirmation of a sale of property would do.
However, much more importantly, have you sent off the recommended letter and SWS and draft order?
What you have to extremely careful of is QDR offering to agree to the set aside and then discontinuing, leaving you out of pocket for the N244 application fee. You need to stay in this to be able to recoup your N244 fee.
-
Morning, just a quick update:
I have had a letter from UKPC's solicitors (QDR) asking if I can send them proof of my change of address in 2020, so that they can "Review the application with the claimant ahead of the hearing".
Should I give them this or is there any reason not to?
Thanks a lot!
-
I've sorted it and sent it off, thanks again for all your help. :)
-
Silly question probably again....but are all 20 pages of the tenancy agreement necessary? I have so far scanned in the ones that speak about my tenancy dates, and signatures etc. Do I really need all the other pages of terms and conditions etc? I can scan them if legally necessary, just seems a bit tedious!
-
OK I'm with you, thanks again.
-
You do not want an SAR. You should be able to plead a defence based solely on the PoC. If they are deficient, which we know they are, then that is pointed out to the court in your defence.
You do not want to point out the claimants failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 and then go on to fully plead a defence on detail that should have been provided at the time of the claim. If the claim is not struck out, you want to have the claimant ordered to submit a fully particularised claim and then be given the opportunity to plead a valid defence in response.
-
Ok thank you, should I do that before getting those letters off to the court or all at the same time? Probably a stupid question but I've fallen foul of assuming legal processes I the past!
-
It really doesn't matter at this stage. The claim was never acknowledged or even served to the defendants address at the time.
UKPC are a vexatious pack of vermin that prey on motorists with their borderline lawful PCNs and will not hesitate to take advantage of their bulk litigation friends suggestions that they seek default CCJs wherever possible.
We already know that in over 99% of cases, they will discontinue any claim if it is defended.
-
In which case I suggest you do another basic task: submit a Subject Access Request to UKPC. Why go to court with what ifs/I can't explain how/I haven't a clue when you could try and nail some of the known unknowns beforehand?
-
I have no idea if I was the driver on that day, as it was too long ago, but I have usually registered all of my vehicles on the day of purchase. I would have probably been the registered keeper. I have no idea why I didn't receive the notices up until 2020, other than the possibility that they were not sent until after 2020, or they were delivered to the wrong door as it was a large block of flats (this happened quite regularly). Either that or there was a problem with the address on the envelopes from UKPC.
I am only surmising though as the first I knew of this case was the CCJ on my credit report.
-
Can we try the basics first.
OP, you posted: I left the old address in Jan 2020,....
You also posted: I called the court, and was advised that this was for a parking charge from 2017.
So, it's not 2020-2024 which is in the spotlight but rather 2017-2020.
So let's ask the questions:
Were you the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned or only the driver or hirer?
If the registered keeper, were your DVLA V5C details up-to-date;
If so, can you think why you would not have received any of the statutory notices?
-
Thank you so much for all that!
Will get that all done and sent off by tonight. I really do appreciate this!
-
You need to urgently write a letter to the court manager and attach a Supplementary Witness Statement (SWS) and a draft order. Here are some suggestions:
Court Manager
Watford County Court
10 King Street
Watford
WD18 0BW
[Date]
RE: Request for Urgent Rescheduling of CCJ Set Aside Hearing
Claim Number: [Insert Claim Number]
Defendant: [Your Name]
Hearing Date: [Insert Scheduled Hearing Date]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to request an urgent rescheduling of the set aside hearing for the above-referenced claim. The hearing is currently scheduled for [insert hearing date], which is nearly eight months from now. This delay is causing considerable financial hardship.
Grounds for Urgency
I discovered the default judgment (CCJ) on my credit report on [insert date], and I promptly submitted an N244 application to have the judgment set aside. As per the overriding objective of the court under CPR 1.1, cases should be dealt with justly, fairly and expeditiously. The court expects a defendant who becomes aware of a default CCJ to act without delay, as I have done. However, the long delay in scheduling my hearing conflicts with this expectation and undermines the purpose of timely resolution.
The CCJ, which was obtained without proper service, is continuing to cause significant financial harm. I have been unable to access affordable credit, and it is negatively affecting my credit rating, housing, and employment opportunities. This situation is unjust and unsustainable given that UKPC failed to comply with CPR 6.9, as they did not make reasonable efforts to verify my current address before serving the claim.
The Overriding Objective
In addition to the financial impact, the current scheduling undermines the spirit of the overriding objective, which requires the court to ensure that cases are managed fairly, promptly and in a way that saves expense. The extended delay of nearly eight months renders meaningless the requirement for the defendant to act without delay upon discovering a default judgment. It also conflicts with the court’s duty to ensure that claims are served correctly and parties are given the opportunity to participate in proceedings in a timely manner.
Steps Taken to Rectify the Situation
Recognising that my initial application was submitted without fully understanding procedural requirements, I am submitting a supplementary witness statement and a draft order along with this letter. These documents provide additional evidence of incorrect service and outline my prospects for successfully defending the claim.
Request for Rescheduling
Given the severe financial impact and the procedural irregularities in the service of the claim, I respectfully ask that my hearing be rescheduled at the earliest possible date. The current delay is disproportionate and inconsistent with the court’s overriding objective to handle cases expeditiously and fairly.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your response and a more appropriate hearing date.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Defendant
Enclosures
Supplementary Witness Statement (with evidence of address change and financial hardship)
Draft Order
Here is a suggested SWS:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
[Claimant's Full Name]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR NAME]
I, [Your Full Name], of [Your Address], will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I am the Defendant in this case and submit this supplementary witness statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me on [Insert Date of Judgment]. This statement is supplementary to my N244 application filed on [Insert Date of Filing].
2. I seek the court's discretion to set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2 on the grounds that the judgment was irregularly obtained due to improper service, or alternatively, under CPR 13.3, as I have a good prospect of successfully defending the claim and the delay until the hearing is causing me significant financial harm.
Failure to Serve at My Current Address
3. The judgment was obtained without my knowledge. The Claimant served the claim form to my old address at [Insert Old Address], which I vacated on [Insert Date]. I moved to my current address at [Insert Current Address] on [Insert Date], and I have been registered on the open electoral roll at this address since then.
4. The Claimant made no attempt to verify my correct address, despite having the option to do so through easily accessible databases such as the electoral roll or other credit referencing systems, in breach of CPR 6.9(3). The Claimant should have known that my address had changed by checking publicly available data before serving the claim form.
5. The claim form was served to an address that I had vacated several years earlier, meaning I had no knowledge of the proceedings and no opportunity to defend myself. I only became aware of the judgment when I discovered it on my credit report on [Insert Date].
Impact of the Default Judgment
6. The default judgment is having a devastating impact on my financial situation. My credit rating has been significantly damaged, and as a result, I have been unable to secure credit at reasonable rates. I am also facing issues with housing applications, as many landlords and letting agents require a clean credit report.
7. Additionally, the judgment is affecting my employment prospects, as certain employers check credit history during the hiring process. I have attached evidence showing the damage to my credit report as Exhibit A and proof of my address change as Exhibit B.
Real Prospect of Defence
8. I also submit that I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Based on the limited information available to me, I believe that the Claimant, UKPC, has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) for keeper liability, or that their claim is otherwise defective.
9. Until I receive the properly served particulars of claim and associated documents, I am unable to provide a full defence. However, I intend to raise a defence based on non-compliance with PoFA, as well as the Claimant’s failure to follow the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which is relevant to UKPC’s membership obligations.
The Overriding Objective and Delay Until the Hearing
10. I acted promptly as soon as I became aware of the default judgment, which is a requirement for a defendant seeking to set aside a judgment. I filed my application without delay, yet the hearing has been scheduled nearly eight months from now, which significantly undermines the court's overriding objective under CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly and expeditiously.
11. The substantial delay before the hearing will cause further irreparable harm to my financial situation. Given that the default judgment was entered without proper service and I have demonstrated prompt action in seeking to rectify this, I respectfully request that the hearing be expedited to prevent further prejudice.
Claim is Dead Due to Failure to Serve within 4 Months
12. CPR 7.5(1) provides that a claim form must be served within 4 months from the date it is issued. The claim in this case was issued on [Insert Issue Date] and has not been properly served to me within that period.
13. Several cases confirm that the court cannot resurrect a claim after more than 4 months have passed without valid service:
(a) In Boxwood [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), the court reaffirmed that CPR 7.6(3) does not allow extensions of time for serving a claim form unless strict conditions are met, and other CPR provisions cannot be used to circumvent these requirements.
(b) In Croke v National Westminster Bank Plc [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch), the court refused to grant relief from sanctions where a claim form was served one day late, confirming the strict application of service rules. The claim ceased to have validity after the four-month period.
(c) Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 1708 (QB) refused an application for retrospective extension of time to serve a claim form. The court held that failure to serve within the validity period resulted in the claim becoming "dead."
(d) Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 confirmed that the court does not have the power to extend time limits under CPR 7.6 after the four-month period has expired.
14. As more than 4 months have passed since the claim form was issued without proper service, this claim is now dead and cannot be revived.
CPR 12.3(1) and No Default
15. CPR 12.3(1) requires that judgment in default can only be entered if the defendant has not acknowledged service and the relevant time for doing so has expired. Since the claim form was not properly served, the time for acknowledging service has not even begun, let alone expired. As the condition in CPR 12.3(1)(b) has not been satisfied, the judgment was wrongly entered, and I request that it be set aside under CPR 13.2.
16. The failure to serve the claim form within the period of its validity means that the claim cannot be resurrected, and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this dead claim.
17. In the matter of costs, I ask:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5
18. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
Conclusion
19. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the court:
(a) Set aside the default judgment entered on [Insert Judgment Date] under CPR 13.2 or, in the alternative, CPR 13.3;
(b) Strike out the claim as it is now "dead" due to the expiry of more than 4 months since its issue without valid service under CPR 7.5(1);
(c) In the alternative, reschedule the set aside hearing to an earlier date due to the ongoing financial harm caused by the delay;
(c) Permit me to file a defence within 14 days of the reissued claim being properly served; and
(d) Order that the Claimant be responsible for my costs of this application.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this supplementary 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:
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Credit report showing the impact of the CCJ.
Exhibit B: Proof of your address change (e.g., electoral roll, tenancy agreement, or utility bills).
And here is a suggested draft order:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
[Claimant's Full Name]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON reading the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3
AND UPON hearing from both parties
AND UPON considering that more than 4 months have passed since the issue of the claim and it has not been validly served within the time period required by CPR 7.5
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment entered on [Insert Judgment Date] be set aside under CPR 13.2 as the judgment was irregularly obtained, or alternatively, under CPR 13.3 as the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
2. The claim be struck out as more than 4 months have passed from the issue of proceedings, and the claim was not validly served within the time period prescribed by CPR 7.5(1), rendering the claim "dead."
3. Costs of the application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £303.
Dated: [Insert Date]
-
May 2025? For a CCJ! That's a ridiculous amount of time to have this hanging over your head. Which court is your hearing scheduled at?
It's Watford court, not too far from me. I thought it seemed a long time too, as my credit rating has been destroyed by it and will remain that way until then, assuming I am successful!
-
May 2025? For a CCJ! That's a ridiculous amount of time to have this hanging over your head. Which court is your hearing scheduled at?
-
Was there a draft order?
I am not sure what that is, so the answer is probably no.
I literally just spotted the CCJ, called the court, then filled out the N244 form and sent it in. Then I got a court date through the other day for May 2025.
-
Was there a draft order?
-
What exactly did you put in your Witness Statement and draft order for the set aside? Have you quoted CPR 13.2 or 13.3? Have you quoted CPR 7.5?
Please show us what you put in your WS.
The CCJ will most likely be set aside under CPR 13.3. However, without knowing what else you put in your WS, it is likely that the cost of the application will be reserved, which is not good for you as UKPC will discontinue before any subsequent hearing and you won't be able to recover those costs.
If more than 4 months have passed since the CCJ, you could have applied CPR 7.5 which would have meant that the claim was struck out.
Thank you, this is what I put in my WS...I didn't quote anything as I was not thinking I needed to at the time, it only dawned on my after the event that I should have sought advice. Was very anxious to get it sorted so just sent it all off same day:
Court papers were not served to me at my current address. The address they were served to an old address which I vacated in 2020. This should have been realised as I was on the open electoral roll at my new address.
No attempt appears to have been made by UKPC to verify my correct address and I have no knowledge of the alleged infringement, nor any knowledge of the resulting court case until I spotted it on my credit report today, Thursday the 5th September 2024.
The evidence I will rely on is the fact I moved to a new address on January 30th 2020.
Old address is:
-
What exactly did you put in your Witness Statement and draft order for the set aside? Have you quoted CPR 13.2 or 13.3? Have you quoted CPR 7.5?
Please show us what you put in your WS.
The CCJ will most likely be set aside under CPR 13.3. However, without knowing what else you put in your WS, it is likely that the cost of the application will be reserved, which is not good for you as UKPC will discontinue before any subsequent hearing and you won't be able to recover those costs.
If more than 4 months have passed since the CCJ, you could have applied CPR 7.5 which would have meant that the claim was struck out.
-
Sorry yes, the set aside hearing. Will scan the doc in a bit later. Thanks!
-
I guess it's for the set-aside hearing, not the actual claim? It may be worth posting the doc up.
-
Update: I now have a court date through for May 2025. As above, any advice as to what I need to do next would be greatly appreciated!
-
Dear Forum,
I recently checked my credit rating which should be very high, but noticed it was very low. After a bit of clicking around I was stunned to find a CCJ for £236, with my old address linked to it. The date of the CCJ is Jan 2023.
I left the old address in Jan 2020, and have been on the public electoral roll ever since so should have been easy enough to find. Other utilities found me at my new address with no problem.
I called the court, and was advised that this was for a parking charge from 2017, which I have no recollection of. The lady I spoke to gave the name of UKPC as the claimant, and advised me to complete an N244 set aside application, which I did. It didn't dawn on me that this was the sort of issue I should be seeking advice for first, I thought it would be straightforward.
Anyway, I have emailed the N244 form back to them, stating that I did not live at the address since Jan 2020, so the judgement was improperly served. I did this on the 5th September.
I did not contact UKPC or ask for all the particulars of the claim from the court, as per your guidance, as I didn't know I had to at the time. It was only after Googling after the event I realise I maybe should have.
Please could someone tell me how much these omissions matter? And what, if anything, I should do next?
Many thanks in advance.