Free Traffic Legal Advice

No doubt you Arte in court now waiting for your hearing. The SAR, which was conveniently not responded to until the day before your set aside hearing, contains evidence of their failure to do the necessary checks before issuing the original claim to an address you no longer resided at but they easily found your current address a few years later when trying to chase up the CCJ.

The original PCN, issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not PoFA compliant and therefore they could never have held you liable as the Keeper. If you never gave them the identity of the driver, then they had no cause to sue you.

Please let us know how you get on in court today. Hopefully the CCJ will be set aside (mandatory set aside) and the claim itself will be struck out.

Well done How did you find it overall? Did the claimant have a representative there?

Your CCJ has been set aside and the claimant must pay your costs for the application. That's a great win in itself.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the rest of your posts but you say "new appointment" (??) and you've been ordered to submit a defence by 4pm on Tuesday 24th June. What is this "appointment"? Is it the deadline for you to submit a defence to the claim or for a hearing on the claim itself?

Has the claimant been ordered to submit further PoC or a new claim?

You can request the strike out in your defence, assuming the claimant doesn't throw the towel in before then.

Please let us know how you get on in court today. Hopefully the CCJ will be set aside (mandatory set aside) and the claim itself will be struck out

Thank you so much for your help as the YouTube video was really helpful and I felt more comfortable after I watched it. It was exactly like the video mentioned in a little room like an office just me as defendant and the judge.
I brought the 3 set of hard copies as you advised thank you so much for that too, 68 pages each, that i shared with Deputy District Judge Harper, she only joked that she didn't have the time to review them all, but finally she skimmed around a little bit and said that she already had everything she needed.
The sra. judge led me through the process as you said and also asked how I was able to prepare my self to fight this case. Unfortunately the part "b" on the complains application was missing as I only wrote the sentence "set aside". Hence that will be unfair to the other part 'she said' as I never requested for a 'strike out' on my application. However she gave me the opportunity to file and sent a defence before 3 weeks.

-WS paragraph 20. - ["In light of the procedural breaches, the defective service of the claim form, the inadequacy of the PoC, and the fact that the claim is now time-barred, I respectfully request that the court:

a. Set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 or, alternatively, CPR 13.3;
b. Strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2) due to the Claimant’s non-compliance with CPR 16.4 and CPR 7.5;
c. Award me my costs of this application on an indemnity basis."]
Sadly, that she focus so much on this paragraph but happy that she set aside the CCJ.

I do not understand the questions. Could you please kindly formulate those in a different way, thanks

I am a bit surprised that the DDJ only required you to submit a defence by 24th June. Normally, they would require the claimant to either re-issue the claim first and then for you to submit your defence.

It may be worth waiting for the order to come from the court so you can show us and then we will know exactly what the DDJ ordered. It normally takes a week or so to arrive in the post.

You say the DDJ refused the strike out because you only put "Set aside" on the N244 application form. The DDJ was correct in law: the court cannot strike out a claim of its own initiative at a CPR 13.2 hearing if the N244 application itself didn’t expressly request a strike-out order. Whilst the draft order and WS asked for it—but unless it’s ticked or stated clearly in box 3 (the relief sought) on the N244 application, the court will usually limit its decision to what was formally requested on the face of that application.

That being said, the defence can still (and does) raise these strike-out points, and as the defendant, you are perfectly entitled to ask for the claim to be struck out in the defence. The CPR does not prevent a defendant from raising CPR 3.4 grounds at the defence stage, especially when:


As you have been given you a deadline by which you must file a defence to the claim and as you have not had any further PoC and unless the judge has ordered the claimant to submit them, it is too late for them to submit now. So, the defence you submit is based on the PoC of the original claim, even though technically, you have never been served them.

In addition to the suggested defence, you should also combine the following draft order with it. There is nothing for you to edit in the draft order except your name. The draft order is included with the defence as an attachment in MS Word format:

IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON

Claim No: H3GM808Q

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DRAFT ORDER

UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant

AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:

1. The claim form was not served within four months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;

2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and disclose no reasonable cause of action;

4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c);

2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.

Dated:

Here is a link to the draft order in MS Word .docx format:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4uodp2u986vowg0lca0os/Draft-order-H3GM808Q.docx?rlkey=qjqfcxqqllt8y4hhdvgvme20a&st=w5ukyid2&dl=0

OK. Do you have the email address CE used to send you the SAR response? Please show it to us.

Have CE paid your £300 costs order yet?

I suggest that you do the following TODAY. You post the defence and draft order, repeated below, FIRST CLASS and you do so at a Post Office and get a free 'Proof of Posting' certificate. You address is to Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF. DO NOT leave this until tomorrow or after the weekend. You MUST get a proof of posting certificate dated today.

You also email the defence and draft order to the court at enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.ukand, if you have valid email address for CE, CC it to that email address and also CC yourself.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CROYDON

Claim No: H3GM808Q

BETWEEN:

Cicil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration GJ60PEO.

2. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the sums claimed or any amount at all.

3. The Defendant was unaware of this claim until receiving a letter dated 13 October 2024 from the Claimant, informing them of a County Court Judgment entered in default on 15 June 2021. The Defendant applied to set aside that judgment on the grounds of defective service.

4. On 3 June 2025, the County Court granted the Defendant’s application and set aside the judgment under CPR 13.2. This confirms that no valid service of the claim form ever took place.

5. The Claimant issued the claim on 14 May 2021. In accordance with CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be served on the Defendant within 4 calendar months of the date of issue — i.e. by 14 September 2021.

6. It is now an accepted fact, as recognised by the Court in setting aside judgment under CPR 13.2, that the claim form was never served within that 4-month period. No application to extend time for service was made within those 4 months. Therefore, the claim form expired and cannot now be revived.

7. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, the Court of Appeal confirmed that failure to comply with CPR 7.5 by serving a claim form within the permitted period is fatal to the claim. The court has no power to retrospectively validate service or to revive an expired claim form.

8. In light of Vinos, and the fact that no valid service took place within the prescribed timeframe, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim. The claim is void and must be struck out accordingly.

9. Further and in the alternative, the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies.

10. The Particulars of Claim filed in this case do not identify a cause of action. They merely refer to a parking charge being incurred and assert, without evidence or explanation, that the Defendant breached unspecified terms and conditions.

11. No contractual terms are pleaded. No conduct is identified as constituting a breach. No explanation is given as to how the sum of £170 was arrived at, nor is any legal basis offered for seeking the claimed interest or charges.

12. This style of pleading has already been criticised in other persuasive appeals cases. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44] and the same claimant as in this case, HHJ Murch held that the standard CEL wording failed to identify a cause of action and was therefore an abuse of process. The claim was struck out.

13. The same issues were identified in the persuasive appeals case of CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], where the County Court also struck out a claim pleaded in virtually identical terms for failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and failing to disclose any reasonable grounds or cause of action.

14. The Defendant invites the Court to adopt the same approach in this case and to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that (i) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, and (ii) it is an abuse of process.

15. The Defendant further submits that the Court is entitled to strike out the claim of its own initiative, on reading the Particulars of Claim and Defence, on the basis that:

(a) the Particulars do not set out the terms of any alleged contract;
(b) the Particulars do not identify what the alleged breach was;
(c) the Claimant could have remedied this defect by serving separate, detailed particulars pursuant to CPR PD7C para 5.2(2), but chose not to;
(d) the sums claimed are modest, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to expend court resources on ordering amended particulars and a further defence.

16. The claim concerns a very modest sum, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to allocate further court resources by ordering the Claimant to re-plead its case or to require the Defendant to plead a further defence to an incoherent claim.

17. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim in full.

18. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant reserves the right to amend and expand this Defence once proper Particulars of Claim are served.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

And the draft order, preferably as a Word (.docx) format, but PDF will be OK:

IN THE COUNTY COURTAT CROYDON

Claim No: H3GM808Q

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DRAFT ORDER

UPON reading the Defence filed by the Defendant

AND UPON the Court being satisfied that:

1. The claim form was not served within four months of issue, contrary to CPR 7.5;

2. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the claim, following Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784;

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and disclose no reasonable cause of action;

4. It would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to require the Claimant to re-plead and the Defendant to respond to an incoherent and expired claim;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c);

2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the claim, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.

Dated:

so, you email the defence and draft order to enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC legal@ce-service.co.uk and yourself.

If you have not received the £300 costs as ordered by Friday 4th July, send the following by email to legal@ce-service.co.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Claim No: H3GM80Q8 – Breach of Costs Order dated 3 June 2025

Dear Civil Enforcement Legal Team,

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Marcos Benito Baraja Claim Number: H3GM80Q8 – County Court at Croydon

I refer to the order made by District Judge Harper on 3 June 2025, which required the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs in the sum of £300.00 within 14 days of service.

The sealed order was issued on 18 June 2025 and deemed served on 20 June 2025. The deadline for compliance therefore expired on 4 July 2025. No payment has been received.

This is a clear breach of a binding court order. If payment is not received in full by 7 July 2025, I will proceed without further notice to issue formal enforcement proceedings under CPR Parts 70 and/or 71. Please be advised that any such application will include a claim for the additional costs of enforcement, for which you may be held liable pursuant to CPR 44.2 and the overriding objective.

If payment has already been made, please confirm this immediately. If you require bank details, request them without delay.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

ONLY send the above if you have NOT received payment by Friday 4th July.

You only need to send a copy of the defence and draft order by post to the court. Everything else is done by email. This is simply a "belt & braces" exercise for now.

Everything as you advised, thank you




email arrived asking for my bank details


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]