I’ve reviewed your N244 application form, witness statement, and draft order, and from a content and legal argument perspective, they are strong and well-structured. Here’s my assessment:
1. Core Legal BasisYou’ve clearly advanced three interlocking grounds:
• CPR 13.2 (mandatory set-aside) — Improper service to a UK address when you were overseas, supported by CPR 6.9(3)/(4), CPR 6.36, and PD 6B arguments. This is the most powerful basis — if the judge finds service was invalid, set-aside is automatic and not discretionary.
• CPR 13.3 (discretionary set-aside) — A real prospect of defending, with detailed factual background (payment made, disability considerations, Consumer Rights Act, Equality Act), plus POPLA/PPSAP context.
• CPR 7.5 expiry — If judgment is set aside, claim should be struck out for being time-expired due to lack of valid service within four months.
• CPR 3.4(2)(a) — As an alternative strike-out basis for no reasonable cause of action (bare POC).
This three-tiered approach is legally sound.
2. StrengthsService defect is well-evidenced — Overseas residence, documentary proof, no permission for service out of jurisdiction, and Claimant had an active email contact but didn’t use it.
Recent appellate authority —
VCS v Carr is binding and directly relevant to your facts. You’ve applied it persuasively to the service defect and expiry arguments.
Defence merits — The payment proof and Equality Act arguments are credible and fact-specific. Linking this to Consumer Rights Act transparency obligations strengthens the proportionality/unfairness point.
Chronology — Clear, documented sequence of events showing prompt action once aware of the judgment. This addresses the “promptness” requirement under CPR 13.3.
Costs argument — Framing it under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and citing unreasonable conduct in refusing a consent order is legitimate.
3. Points to Tighten or ClarifyCRA & Equality Act interplay — You mention both, but it may be worth explicitly linking them in a short paragraph:
CRA 2015 → transparency of terms
Equality Act 2010 → duty to make reasonable adjustments, including extra time for those with disabilities or caring for disabled persons.
This makes the judge’s job easier in seeing the statutory framework in one place.
PPSAP amendment relevance — You’ve correctly noted the change is post-event but shows industry acknowledgment of unfairness. Be ready to rebut any suggestion this is “irrelevant” because it’s not retrospective — emphasise it goes to reasonableness of term at the time, supporting CRA fairness tests.
Costs wording in draft order — At para. 3 of the draft order, you’re asking for costs “pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g)” and saying “reasonable costs of attending the hearing.” For consistency, you might want to also reference the VCS v Carr position that where no track allocation has occurred, costs can follow the event on an indemnity basis (your WS does say this, but draft order doesn’t).
Strike-out after set-aside — You’ve got both CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 7.5 expiry in the draft order. Judges sometimes prefer to deal with one point. You might strengthen this by adding: “In the alternative, directions for the Claimant to re-serve within X days, failing which strike-out”. That way you’re not seen as asking for a double-barrelled strike-out without fallback.
Minor factual check — In WS para. 6.2, you say you left the UK on 13 October 2024 and returned 18 June 2024 — that should presumably be 2025. Small typo but could confuse the judge.
4. Overall OpinionThe content and legal argument are strong, especially on the CPR 13.2 service defect and CPR 7.5 expiry.
The witness statement is detailed but remains relevant — the facts directly support the rules you cite.
The draft order aligns with the application and is realistic for a DJ to grant.
The case law (
VCS v Carr, C
EL v Chan,
CPMS v Akande) is well-chosen for mandatory set-aside and defective particulars.
If the judge accepts your CPR 13.2 argument, they must set aside the judgment, and CPR 7.5 expiry could end the matter entirely without a re-trial. Your fallback under CPR 13.3 is solid if service is (wrongly) deemed valid.
There is some repetition in the WS that you could streamline without losing any substance. The most noticeable examples are:
1. Repeated service defect points
• Paras 4.3–4.9 already set out that you were overseas, didn’t live at the service address, no permission to serve out of jurisdiction, and that the claimant had your email.
• Para 7.2.1–7.2.4 repeats the same points almost word-for-word, with only the VCS v Carr reference added.
Merge them so the factual narrative (paras 4.x) is concise, and then the legal analysis (para 7.2) simply cross-refers back — e.g. “As set out in paras 4.3–4.9 above…”.
2. Particulars of Claim defect repeated
• Para 5.5 says POC fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
• Para 7.3.1(b) repeats this as “pleadings are defective” and lacking concise facts.
• Para 9.3 & 9.4 again repeat this, citing CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande.
Mention the POC defect once in the factual background, then again in the legal section with the case law — no need to restate the defect in the conclusion beyond a short reminder.
3. Payment made & nature of alleged breach
• Paras 5.1–5.4 set out that you paid, ANPR measures from entry, signage didn’t say so, and your mother’s disability delayed payment.
• Paras 7.3.1(a)–(d) essentially restate those points.
• Para 7.4 says again “POC state parking without payment” and repeats that you have payment evidence.
Keep the detailed factual narrative in section 5, then in 7.3.1 summarise it in one sentence as “As set out in paras 5.1–5.4, payment was made in full, but the Claimant alleges non-payment solely because their ANPR clock runs from entry without notice — a term that is both unfair and disproportionate given the circumstances.”
4. Case law repetition
• VCS v Carr is mentioned in paras 7.2.4, 8.1.1–8.1.3, and 9.2.
• CEL v Chan appears in 8.1.4–8.1.6 and again in 9.3–9.4.
Keep the first mention with the legal test, then in the conclusion simply refer to “as per
VCS v Carr and
CEL v Chan” rather than summarising them again.
A tighter WS makes it easier for the judge to follow the flow — and since DJs skim-read, they’ll appreciate concise, non-redundant points. It also reduces the risk of the judge thinking you’re “padding” the application.
Here’s a suggested streamlined, judge-friendly version of your witness statement. It keeps every legal and factual point from your current WS but removes the repeated elements, groups related arguments together, and makes it easier for a District Judge to follow in one read. It is also better to just use integer sequential paragraph numbering:
1. I am [NAME], of [Overseas address], the Defendant. This statement supports my application dated [xx xxx 2025] to:
(a) set aside the default judgment entered on 8 April 2025;
(b) strike out the claim; and
(c) order the Claimant to pay my costs, including the £313 application fee and my reasonable hearing expenses.
2. The facts in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated.
Background and service defect
3. The Claimant obtained default judgment on 8 April 2025 for an alleged parking charge from 5 April 2024.
4. I have lived overseas with my husband since 2003. At the time of purported service (10 March 2025) I was continuously resident abroad, having left the UK on 13 October 2024 and not returning until 18 June 2025, as evidenced by my [Country] Resident ID and Company Letter (Appendix E) and my travel records (Appendix B).
5. The claim form was served at a UK address I visit rarely and rent out, which was not my “usual or last known residence” under CPR 6.9. The Claimant had my active email (Appendix D) used for earlier PCN correspondence, but made no attempt to verify my current address or use alternative service under CPR 6.9(4).
6. No application was made to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and PD 6B. The claim form has therefore never been validly served.
7. These facts mirror VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where failure to take reasonable steps to ensure effective service rendered the judgment void.
Factual basis of defence
8. On 5 April 2024 I parked in the Claimant’s underground car park while assisting my 86-year-old mother, who has dementia and mobility issues, to attend the library.
9. The location has no mobile reception underground, so payment via the parking app was impossible until we had exited on foot. The only pedestrian exit is a steep stairway; assisting my mother to climb it took significant time. Once outside, I immediately paid for two hours’ parking and we returned to the car. We left before the paid-for time expired. Proof of payment is attached at Appendix A.
10. The PCN was issued despite full payment being made. The alleged “overstay” arises solely because the Claimant’s ANPR system times from vehicle entry, not the point of parking or payment. This was not stated clearly on signage.
11. The Equality Act 2010 recognises dementia as a disability and requires reasonable adjustments, such as allowing additional time for disabled persons or carers to reach payment facilities. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) also requires such consideration. A medical report confirming her diagnosis is at Appendix F
12. The PPSCoP was amended on 17 February 2025 to prohibit PCNs where the correct tariff has been paid before leaving, regardless of when payment was made. Although post-dating my case, this change evidences the industry’s own recognition that such charges are unfair, supporting my arguments under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that the timing term was neither transparent nor fair.
Defects in the Particulars of Claim
13. The Particulars allege “parking without paying to park” — a statement that is factually untrue. They also fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16 para 7.5 by not identifying the specific conduct alleged to constitute the breach.
14. In CEL v Chan (Luton CC, 2023) and CPMS v Akande, parking claims were struck out for similar failures.
Promptness and conduct
15. I discovered the judgment only on 30 June 2025 during a visit to the UK. I immediately contacted CNBC for the N244 form and sought to resolve the matter without court intervention.
16. On 22 July 2025 and again on 8 August 2025, I invited the Claimant to agree a consent order to set aside judgment at no cost to the court. The Claimant refused, responding only with payment demands. This conduct is contrary to the Overriding Objective and has caused unnecessary cost. Emails to and from the Claimant are at Appendix D. CNBC’s email with N244 instructions is at Appendix C.
Legal basis for application
17. Under CPR 13.2, the court must set aside a default judgment if service was not effected in accordance with CPR 6.9. Here:
(a) service was to an address that was not my usual or last known residence;
(b) no reasonable steps were taken to ascertain my current address;
(c) no permission was sought for service out of jurisdiction; and
(d) there was no valid service within CPR 7.5’s four-month limit.
18. Alternatively, under CPR 13.3 I have a real prospect of defending the claim:
• full payment was made for the period parked;
• signage failed the CRA 2015 transparency test; and
• no reasonable adjustments were made under the Equality Act 2010.
19. The claim form is now expired under CPR 7.5. If the judgment is set aside, the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or CPR 7.5.
Costs
20. No track allocation has occurred, so the fixed small-claims costs regime does not apply. Consistent with VCS v Carr, I seek costs on the indemnity basis under CPR 44.3, including:
• the £313 application fee; and
• my reasonable travel and accommodation costs for attending the hearing from overseas.
Conclusion
21. For the reasons above, I respectfully ask the court to:
(a) set aside the default judgment dated 8 April 2025;
(b) strike out the claim as expired or disclosing no reasonable grounds; and
(c) order the Claimant to pay my costs on the indemnity basis.
Ideally, you should reference the "appendixes" as "exhibits" and you should label each one in the format of "Exhibit AA-01" where "AA" is your initials. Also, it is best if you number them in the order they are first referred to in your WS.
Also, here is here’s a revised draft order that aligns with the streamlined WS and clearly builds in the indemnity costs position. It keeps the key relief you’re seeking, but sets it out in the order most judges prefer:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON reading the Defendant’s application dated [xx xxx 2025] and the annexed witness statement;
AND UPON it appearing that the default judgment dated 8 April 2025 was wrongly entered because the claim form was not validly served at the Defendant’s usual or last known residence, the Defendant being resident overseas at all material times;
AND UPON it appearing that no application was made for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, and that more than four months have elapsed since the issue of proceedings on 10 March 2025 without valid service, contrary to CPR 7.5;
AND UPON the Particulars of Claim failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by not setting out a concise statement of facts capable of disclosing a cause of action;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment dated 8 April 2025 is set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.
2. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or because the claim form has expired under CPR 7.5 without valid service.
3. Costs:
(a) The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application, including the £313 court fee and the Defendant’s reasonable travel and accommodation expenses for attending the hearing from overseas.
(b) Such costs shall be assessed on the indemnity basis pursuant to CPR 44.3, there having been no track allocation and the Claimant having acted unreasonably in refusing to consent to the set-aside despite clear evidence of defective service.
4. Stay of enforcement: All enforcement of the judgment is stayed pending the outcome of this application.[/center]
This structure makes your application easier for a DJ to follow:
•Grounds are summarised in the recitals.
• Relief is in clear numbered paragraphs.
• Costs basis is explicitly tied to CPR 44.3 and unreasonable conduct, consistent with VCS v Carr.
