Urgent: setting aside CCJ, Premier Park denies that I told them I changed address

**charitynjw** · 1st March 2019, 22:40:PM

Wow! (re the detailed WS.)

If it were me I'd scrub any acknowledgement of the debt (para 28).
Leave the concern about the CCJ affecting your livelihood in there, though.

If you are successful with your set-aside,it will revert back to being a 'live' claim.
You then have the opportunity of fighting it in the normal manner.

The golden rule in private parking cases........never ever disclose who was driving at the time of the alleged incident.
So remove any other references.
Always state "The driver parked....., the registered keeper received [xyz]....." - that kind of thing.

(It doesn't matter too much about your telephone call with Jacob. That will not be remembered. & to omit info is not the same as an untruth.)

It beggars belief!
They send the court claim to a previous address, secure a default CCJ, & magically find your new address to chase/enforce.
Presumably you have been on the electoral register for some while now?

**AlexTheKid** · 3rd March 2019, 16:01:PM

Thank you very much.

I've been checking Legal Beagles' advice page for setting aside CCJs: https://legalbeagles.info/library/ho...-judgment-ccj/

It says I need to include a draft Order, draft Witness Statement and draft Defence.

1) The example N244 form has the "Name of court" as Northampton CCBC. Is this always correct for dealing with CCJ matters? The copy of the Judgement that Premier Park sent me has the name of the court as "the County Court Money Claims Centre".

2) On the example Draft Order, it says "IN THE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNTY COURT". So would this not be Northampton CCBC then? Should it be my local county court?

3) Do I actually need to include a Draft Order at all? I'm not asking for the Claimant to pay costs, as I don't have to pay £255, I'm getting help with fees because I'm on benefits.

4) Do I need to include a Draft Defence? My entire argument is in my witness statement. Or should I cut stuff from my Witness Statement and put it in the Defence instead?

5) The N244 form has a box "What order are you asking the court to make and why?" I intend to put here:

"An order that the Judgement in Default be set aside pursuant to to CPR 13.3. The Defendant did not discover the Judgement until February 2019, as the Claimant used an incorrect address for the Claim. The Defendant has acted promptly in making this application."

I figure that's literally everything I would wish to state on a Draft Order.

Is it worth doing a Draft Order anyway, even if it isn't saying anything extra?

**charitynjw** · 3rd March 2019, 16:21:PM

Hi

I'll give R0b & Amethyst a nudge on this.

**R0b** · 3rd March 2019, 17:02:PM

So are you seeking to set aside pursuant to 13.3 only, or are you also intending to file a defence?

I've only skim-read your witness statement but it sounds like you could get a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2 rather than at the Court's discretion.

On the face of it, I think the section about PP having ever been notified of an address change could be shortened in some areas. I think as per my point about getting the CCJ set aside as of right under 13.2 you need to beef up your WS around that too.

For example, you could make comment along the lines that you had originally corresponded with PP regarding the PCN and if PP, denying that it had been notified of a change of address, did not hear back from you any further (particularly if you had a further opportunity to appeal to an independent appeals service), then it is arguable that PP could have had reason to believe that you no longer reside at that address, even more so if the letter before action received no response. Therefore, prior to issuing the claim, they (or their solicitors) should have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the address for service. I assume that PP have not explained why they had reason to believe you lived at the address, despite not responding? If so, that needs to go in there too (if not already in).

Also to add to the above, CPR 6.9(4)(a) says that if the current address has been ascertained, then the claim form should be served there but, 6.9(4)(b) goes on to say that a claimant must consider serving the claim form at either (i) an alternative place or (ii) method. I am assuming PP did none of these and that is another point to include because CPR 6.9 says that a claimant must consider (4)(a)(i) and (ii) and, had it done some reasonable checks it would have known you had another address, which can be backed up by the fact that not long after judgment, they must have carried out some checks to ascertain your current place of residence.

I've attached a recent County Court decision on appeal which discusses 6.9(4) that might be of some relevance to you. I would suggest you have a read and the judge's decision about this point is at paragraphs 40-41.

Also attach another example of a PCN witness statement that could fill in some gaps you may have missed out, though it doesn't cover the 6.9(4) point I made.

Have a read through and make any amendments as you think fit. If you think you've done what you need, post up a revised version and will take another look at it.

Attached Files

**charitynjw** · 3rd March 2019, 17:21:PM

Wow

Thanks for that, R0b

**AlexTheKid** · 3rd March 2019, 22:23:PM

Originally posted by R0b View Post

So are you seeking to set aside pursuant to 13.3 only, or are you also intending to file a defence?

I am only looking to have it set aside, I am not intending to file a defence. Due to my mental health condition I find all of this stuff extremely stressful, and I'm not sure I have any leg to stand on when it comes to fighting the PCN anyway.

My one and only concern is getting rid of the CCJ. I am absolutely terrified that if for some reason I need to move home within the 6 years I would fail a credit check and end up homeless.

Originally posted by R0b View Post

I've only skim-read your witness statement but it sounds like you could get a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2 rather than at the Court's discretion.

I'm confused by that... CPR 13.2 says that the court must set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered because any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) were not satisfied. I don't see anything in 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) that relates to the claimant having to ascertain the correct address, that's all under 6.9. There's no mention of 6.9 anywhere in 12.3. Or anything about a claim being properly or improperly served.

That PDF you provided of the recent County Court decision makes no mention 13.2 either. The judge ruled that it wasn't properly served, but only ever mentions 6.9. (And also mentions that it could have been set aside under 13.3, due to a reasonable chance of defence.)

Of course, if there's uncertainty over whether 13.2 covers this sort of thing... rather than specifying 13.2 or 13.3, or mentioning whether it is mandatory or at the court's discretion, I suppose I could just ask that it be set aside "because the claim was improperly served" and make reference to the relevant points in 6.9. And then leave it up to the Judge to decide whether that's a mandatory 13.2 thing or discretionary 13.3 thing?

Originally posted by R0b View Post

For example, you could make comment along the lines that you had originally corresponded with PP regarding the PCN and if PP, denying that it had been notified of a change of address, did not hear back from you any further (particularly if you had a further opportunity to appeal to an independent appeals service), then it is arguable that PP could have had reason to believe that you no longer reside at that address, even more so if the letter before action received no response. Therefore, prior to issuing the claim, they (or their solicitors) should have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the address for service. I assume that PP have not explained why they had reason to believe you lived at the address, despite not responding? If so, that needs to go in there too (if not already in).

Also to add to the above, CPR 6.9(4)(a) says that if the current address has been ascertained, then the claim form should be served there but, 6.9(4)(b) goes on to say that a claimant must consider serving the claim form at either (i) an alternative place or (ii) method. I am assuming PP did none of these and that is another point to include because CPR 6.9 says that a claimant must consider (4)(a)(i) and (ii) and, had it done some reasonable checks it would have known you had another address, which can be backed up by the fact that not long after judgment, they must have carried out some checks to ascertain your current place of residence.

Ah excellent, yes this is very helpful.

Originally posted by R0b View Post

I've attached a recent County Court decision on appeal which discusses 6.9(4) that might be of some relevance to you. I would suggest you have a read and the judge's decision about this point is at paragraphs 40-41.

Also attach another example of a PCN witness statement that could fill in some gaps you may have missed out, though it doesn't cover the 6.9(4) point I made.

Have a read through and make any amendments as you think fit. If you think you've done what you need, post up a revised version and will take another look at it.

Great stuff! At first I was a bit bamboozled by the County Court decision on appeal, but as you say paragraphs 40-41 are great.

**R0b** · 3rd March 2019, 23:30:PM

I'm confused by that... CPR 13.2 says that the court must set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered because any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) were not satisfied. I don't see anything in 12.3(1) or 12.3(3) that relates to the claimant having to ascertain the correct address, that's all under 6.9. There's no mention of 6.9 anywhere in 12.3. Or anything about a claim being properly or improperly served.

That PDF you provided of the recent County Court decision makes no mention 13.2 either. The judge ruled that it wasn't properly served, but only ever mentions 6.9. (And also mentions that it could have been set aside under 13.3, due to a reasonable chance of defence.)

Of course, if there's uncertainty over whether 13.2 covers this sort of thing... rather than specifying 13.2 or 13.3, or mentioning whether it is mandatory or at the court's discretion, I suppose I could just ask that it be set aside "because the claim was improperly served" and make reference to the relevant points in 6.9. And then leave it up to the Judge to decide whether that's a mandatory 13.2 thing or discretionary 13.3 thing?

No, it doesn't say it specifically but, 13.2(a) is the point of reference which takes you to CPR 12.1. That provision explains default judgment as:-

12.1 In these Rules, "default judgment" means judgment without trial where a defendant:-

(a) has failed to file an acknowledgement of service

CPR 12.3(1) goes on further to say this:-

The claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if:-

(a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence to the claim; and

(b) the relevant time for doing so has expired.

You run with the argument that, PP having failed to comply with CPR 6.9, service of the claim form was defective and therefore invalid. Since the claim form was not properly served on you, the time for acknowledging the claim form did not begin until it was properly served and, contrary to CPR 12.3(1) the relevant time for acknowledging service did not expire. As such, the judgment was wrongly entered and the default judgment must be set aside as of right.

**AlexTheKid** · 4th March 2019, 12:26:PM

Aha, brilliant!

Which County Court should I put on the Witness Statement? The Witness Statement template has "IN THE [NAME] COUNTY COURT" on it.

The example N244 form has "Name of court" as Northampton CCBC. The original CCJ has "In the the County Court Money Claims Centre" on it, with no location of a court actually specified.

Are Northampton CCBC and the County Court Money Claims Centre one and the same thing? And should I therefore put Northampton CCBC on my Witness Statement as well?

**R0b** · 4th March 2019, 12:43:PM

CCMCC is Salford for claims that are processed by paper rather than online which the Northampton CCBC deals with. Switch it out so that it says "IN THE CCMCC" and send it to the address on the link below. Don't forget to get proof of postage when sending the application, it is common for things to get lost or misplaced.

https://courttribunalfinder.service....s-centre-ccmcc

**AlexTheKid** · 4th March 2019, 23:36:PM

OK, so here's an updated version of the final section of my Witness Statement. For some reason when copying and pasting into the forum, the paragraph numbers all say "1", while in reality in the Word document they are correctly numbered.

GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Rule 6.9(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that the claim should be served at the Defendant's usual or last known residence. My address changed in April 2018, and I informed the Claimant of this in writing on 03 April 2018 and again on 08 May 2018. Therefore the "last known residence" was my new address of [NEW ADDRESS]. Instead the Claimant used a previous address, [OLD ADDRESS].

If the Claimant somehow missed my correspondence informing them of my new address, there were ample indicators that I no longer resided at [OLD ADDRESS]. Any correspondence sent to [OLD ADDRESS] during or after May 2018 either received no response or was Returned to Sender. I had previously corresponded with the Claimant regarding the PCN, so if they did not hear back from me any further, this should have been a clear indication of the obsolescence of the address. (Especially if the letter before action received no response.) Therefore the Claimant knew or should have known that the address they had on file was not a good address for service.

It is my reasonable belief that the Claimant did not carry out reasonable checks (if any) in order to obtain my current address in accordance with Rule 6.9(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 6.9(3) provides that the Claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant's current address, if the Claimant has reason to believe that the address they hold is one where the Defendant no longer resides. The Claimant should therefore have taken steps to locate me, such as using a tracing service to find an updated address. However there is no evidence that the Claimant made any attempt to locate me, by, for example, making searches on the electoral roll or checking with credit reference agencies, or engaging enquiry agents to do so. Any such attempts would have succeeded, as I was 'there to be found'.

CPR 6.9(4)(a) states that if the current address has been ascertained, then the claim form should be served there but, 6.9(4)(b) goes on to say that if the claimant is unable to ascertain the current address, then a claimant must consider whether there is either (i) an alternative place or (ii) alternative method by which service may be effected. The Claimant did none of these. CPR 6.9 says that a claimant must consider (4)(a)(i) and (ii) and, had the Claimant done some reasonable checks it would have known I had another address at which I could be served. Instead the Claimant did not carry out any checks until after the Judgement.

CPR 13.2 states that the court must set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 if (a) in the case of a judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied. CPR 12.1 explains that 'default judgment' means judgment without trial where a defendant (a) has failed to file an acknowledgment of service. 12.3(1) goes on to say:

12.3(1) The claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if:-
(a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence to the claim; and
(b) the relevant time for doing so has expired.

Since the Claimant failed to comply with CPR 6.9, service of the claim form was defective and therefore invalid. The time for acknowledging the claim form cannot begin until the claim has been properly served. It therefore follows that, contrary to CPR 12.3(1), the relevant time for acknowledging service did not expire. As such, the judgment was wrongly entered and the default judgment must be set aside.

There are also grounds for setting aside the default judgement under CPR 13.3. Where no claim form is received, the Court has discretion to set aside the default judgment as explained by May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 (at para. 49):

Rule 13.3(1)(b) has a disjunctive alternative, so that the court may set aside or vary judgment entered in default if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside or varied or the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. In my view, this is plainly capable of extending to circumstances where the defendant has not received the claim form and particulars of claim before judgment was entered against him. It is not an absolute right, but does not have to depend on the defendant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The court therefore has sufficient power to do justice in these cases and will, no doubt, normally exercise this discretion in favour of a defendant who establishes that he had no knowledge of the claim before judgment in default was entered unless it is pointless to do so.

As I did not receive the claim form, the court should set aside the default judgment as per May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council.

CONCLUSION

In the circumstances, I respectfully ask the Court to set aside the judgment under 13.2(a) or 13.3(1)(b) of the CPR, or both.

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true.

**R0b** · 5th March 2019, 08:14:AM

Rule 6.9(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that the claim should be served at the Defendant's usual or last known residence. My address changed in April 2018, and I informed the Claimant of this in writing on 03 April 2018 and again on 08 May 2018. Therefore the "last known residence" was my new address of [NEW ADDRESS]. Instead the Claimant used a previous address, [OLD ADDRESS].

Do you have copies of your letters and if so you should use them as part of your exhibit and refer to them in this paragraph.

If the Claimant somehow missed my correspondence informing them of my new address, there were ample indicators that I no longer resided at [OLD ADDRESS]. Any correspondence sent to [OLD ADDRESS] during or after May 2018 either received no response or was Returned to Sender. I had previously corresponded with the Claimant regarding the PCN, so if they did not hear back from me any further, this should have been a clear indication of the obsolescence of the address. (Especially if the letter before action received no response.) Therefore the Claimant knew or should have known that the address they had on file was not a good address for service.

Have you mentioned earlier in your statement that the Claimant denies receiving the two letters? If not, I would start with that as the first sentence. Something like "[As earlier mentioned in my statement] the Claimant denies having received both letters informing it of my change of address." You should also state (unless referenced earlier) that the letters were correctly marked and addressed.

Also I would not be comfortable with using the expression "ample indicators" unless you had proof of what you are stating. Can you prove that the letters (if any) were marked return to sender? If not, remove it. Your WS is a statement of fact which should be backed up by evidence. Sometimes you can make an inference but to state that they would have been returned is probably a step too far without proof.

I think the rest of the paragraph could go something like this: "Given that I was in correspondence with the Claimant prior to the change of residence, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Claimant ought to have had some reasonable suspicion for the lack of responses to further letters and any letter before action. I should add that soon after the default judgment was granted, I began receiving letters to my current address."

CPR 6.9(4)(a) states that if the current address has been ascertained, then the claim form should be served there but, 6.9(4)(b) goes on to say that if the claimant is unable to ascertain the current address, then a claimant must consider whether there is either (i) an alternative place or (ii) alternative method by which service may be effected. The Claimant did none of these. CPR 6.9 says that a claimant must consider (4)(a)(i) and (ii) and, had the Claimant done some reasonable checks it would have known I had another address at which I could be served. Instead the Claimant did not carry out any checks until after the Judgement.

Remove the bold from any words, this is court you are dealing with not some response to your friends. I think the above paragraph should be paragraph 3 not 4. Last sentence is quite a statement of fact, do you have evidence to prove that the Claimant did not carry out checks until after the judgment was given? If no, I would suggest removing it because paragraph 3 already covers you on that point.

**AlexTheKid** · 5th March 2019, 11:20:AM

Aha, that's great, thank you.

Funnily enough, I put 'must' in bold because the judge did that in the PDF you attached! (He did it to draw attention to that point being mandatory.) But yeah although a judge might do that, I guess it is a bit presumptuous for me to do so, heh.

Is there a possibility that the point that 'I should add that soon after the default judgment was granted, I began receiving letters to my current address' might be undermined by me previously drawing attention to PP's use of an incorrect address after the judgement? Technically, PP still haven't sent any correspondence to my new, correct address. (They got the street right, but wrote to the wrong door number and wrong post code.)

While I wouldn't put it past them to be so incompetent, I actually suspect that PP intentionally wrote to a slightly wrong address in order to pretend that they had difficulty tracing me. (Precisely because easily finding me within a couple of months of the judgement could be used against them!)

Anyway, earlier in the WS - paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 - I mentioned that PP's letter chasing payment of the CCJ had the wrong door number and wrong post code, and so the only reason I received it is because I am friends with my post man and he recognised my name. Although I have since edited the WS, that point still remains in my new version.

Back when I was trying to get the judgement set aside purely on 13.3 discretionary grounds, I thought it was useful to show that PP have persistently failed to use correct and current addresses. (They managed to slightly misspell the address on the original PCN as well.) I figured that a judge might be more likely to set it aside on discretionary grounds if PP were shown to have a pattern of careless or unreasonable behaviour when it came to addressing correspondence. But I removed that point from my WS when you revealed there was a good argument for having a mandatory set aside under 13.2.

Would I perhaps be better off completely omitting paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, and any other references to PP getting the wrong address after the judgement? While I thought it would help my case to point out wherever PP had been incompetent, I worry that instead PP could try to use it to say that I was not easy to trace. Maybe it simplifies things if my WS indicates that PP were able to quickly and easily locate me after the judgement.

**R0b** · 5th March 2019, 11:55:AM

Obviously you have only given us a portion of the WS so the judgment call is for you to make. I am merely suggesting what you could write but it does need to fit in with the rest of what you have said, so if what I have suggested undermines your other sections of WS then either keep what you've mentioned or take what I've used and re-word it so that it fits.

I think it might be worth pointing out that the letters you've received post judgment although partially correct, are still incorrect. You would have to therefore question where they got their information from that indicated you were living at the correct address but different house and postcode; that seems a bit odd don't you think? Especially if you have updated all of your details correctly on the relevant databases. You could infer that PP have consciously amended the address or at the very least a mistake has been made. Only way of finding out is to do a subject access request and see what shows up.

**AlexTheKid** · 5th March 2019, 21:18:PM

Originally posted by R0b View Post

Obviously you have only given us a portion of the WS so the judgment call is for you to make. I am merely suggesting what you could write but it does need to fit in with the rest of what you have said, so if what I have suggested undermines your other sections of WS then either keep what you've mentioned or take what I've used and re-word it so that it fits.

Ah well the paragraphs I was talking about were in my first post in this thread. I've made some amendments to other paragraphs, but the ones in question are still there. But I am happy to post the full WS again below, with the latest edits.

Originally posted by R0b View Post

I think it might be worth pointing out that the letters you've received post judgment although partially correct, are still incorrect. You would have to therefore question where they got their information from that indicated you were living at the correct address but different house and postcode; that seems a bit odd don't you think? Especially if you have updated all of your details correctly on the relevant databases. You could infer that PP have consciously amended the address or at the very least a mistake has been made. Only way of finding out is to do a subject access request and see what shows up.

Yes that's exactly what I was hoping to do. And I did do a subject access request, I've been waiting 2 weeks for it, but PP said it could take up to 30 days. So I'm proceeding with the court application without it, due to thing where application needs to be 'prompt'. I made sure to mention that in the WS.

OK, so here's the updated version of the complete WS!

I, XXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXX will state as follows:

1. I am the Defendant and make this Witness Statement in support of an application to set aside the default judgment entered on XX November 2018 pertaining to a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park Ltd (“Premier Park”) for an alleged contravention on 24 March 2018.

2. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3. There is now produced and shown to me a paginated bundle of true copy documents marked "XX1". All references to documents in this statement are to Exhibit XX1 unless otherwise stated.

4. I learnt of the existence of this claim on or around 01 February 2019 when I received a letter from the Claimant requesting payment of the Judgment. (Page XX of AH1.)

5. My address changed in April 2018 and I informed the Claimant that I had moved home in writing on 03 April 2018 and again on 08 May 2018. Copies of this correspondence can be found on pages XX and XX of XX1.

6. On 06 February 2019 I wrote a request to the Claimant inviting them to consent to set aside the judgment due to the reason in paragraph 4.

7. The Claimant turned down my request.

8. I have attempted to make this application as promptly as possible. However I have severe mental health difficulties, which has made writing this application very difficult for me, and I needed assistance to write it.

9. I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim.

10. There now follows a detailed statement setting out:

(a) the background of the case (paragraphs 11 to 21),
(b) my actions upon discovery of the Judgement (paragraphs 22 to 25),
(c) the Claimant's response to my set aside request (paragraphs 26 to 33), and
(d) an in-depth explanation of the grounds for my application (paragraphs 34 to 42)

BACKGROUND

11. Between XX October 2015 and XX April 2018 I was a tenant at [OLD ADDRESS].

12. On 27 March 2018 Premier Park sent me a PCN. (Page XX of XX1.) The address was misspelt as '[MISSPELT OLD ADDRESS]' rather than '[OLD ADDRESS]', but it reached me nonetheless.

13. On 28 March 2018 a letting agency confirmed I had passed their reference checks and I would soon be able to move to [NEW ADDRESS]. (A copy of the agency's email can be found at page XX of XX1.) From this date onwards I started to inform companies and organisations of my new correspondence address. (The property was unoccupied, so it would not be a problem if post was sent to the new address a few days before I had moved in.)

14. On 30 March 2018 I wrote a note to Premier Park in which I disputed liability for the PCN, as I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. I stated that I was willing to provide the details of the driver but I requested a £10 fee for my time. I also set out a schedule of further charges for any other communications to me.

15. On the morning of 03 April 2018 I wrote to Premier Park stating my change of correspondence address. A copy of this change-of-address message and proof of postage can be found at page XX of XX1.

16. The final paperwork for my new home was completed on 04 April 2018, and I moved to [NEW ADDRESS] on XX April 2018. (A copy of the agency's email confirming this moving-in date can be found at page XX of XX1.)

17. Once I had moved into my new home on XX April 2018, I updated all relevant records to reflect the change of address including the electoral register, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as well as credit reference agencies. I had also made arrangements with a neighbour who lived in my old block at [OLD ADDRESS] to keep any post for me that arrived after I had left.

18. On 27 April 2018 I visited the former neighbour and collected the small amount of post he had held for me. At this point I discovered that on 17 April 2018 Premier Park had written back and rejected my argument. Although I had informed them of my change of address, they had sent this letter to my old address, [OLD ADDRESS]. (Once again misspelt as '[MISSPELT OLD ADDRESS'.) A copy of that letter can be found at page XX of XX1.

19. After 27 April 2018 the arrangement with my former neighbour ended. From this date onwards any post for me sent to [OLD ADDRESS] either received no response, or was marked "Return to Sender" and returned.

20. On 29 April 2018 I wrote a letter to Premier Park, reminding them of the schedule of charges set out in my previous correspondence to them. (A copy of this letter can be found at page XX of XX1.) I did not get around to posting this letter until 08 May 2015, but when I did so I included another change-of-address note, identical to the first but dated 08 May 2018, to make doubly sure that Premier Park were aware of my new address. A copy of this change-of-address note can be found at page XX of XX1.

21. In the subsequent months I heard nothing more from Premier Park. I believed that they had accepted my argument, and that they did not send any further correspondence to me because they did not wish to incur the charges that I had set out in my fee schedule. I therefore thought that the matter was settled.

DISCOVERY OF THE COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT

22. On or around 01 February 2019 I received a letter from "PP Legal", part of Premier Park Ltd, stating that on XX November 2018 a County Court Judgement had been awarded in their favour (in default), and stating that I owed £257. The letter was dated 28 January 2019. (Page XX of XX1.) This was the first time I became aware of the CCJ, or indeed that the original PCN matter was not resolved.

23. The letter from PP Legal was incorrectly addressed to [NEW ADDRESS WITH WRONG DOOR NUMBER & WRONG POST CODE]. I only received it due to being friends with my local post man, he recognised my name on the envelope.

24. PP Legal's letter acknowledged that the Judgement had been returned to the court marked "Return to Sender", and stated that they had now "undertaken a trace" to find my new address. However they sent the letter to an incorrect address I have never been associated with. This is despite the fact that I had previously informed them of my new address, and the fact that the DVLA, electoral register and credit reference agencies have my new address.

25. The letter also threatened to escalate the matter to enforcement, which may include bailiffs, "which will cause the amount due to increase". If it were not for my friendship with the post man, I would not have received this incorrectly addressed letter, and therefore I would not have been able to respond and would have incurred these extra costs.

THE CLAIMANT REJECTS SETTING ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

26. On 06 February 2019 I wrote to Premier Park asking if they would set aside the Default Judgement as no Letter Before Claim or Claim Papers were served at my correct address. (A copy of this letter and proof of postage can be found at page XX of XX1.)

27. On 14 February 2019 I received a phone call from "Jacob" on behalf of Premier Park, regarding my set aside request. I explained that a CCJ might prevent me from passing a letting agency's credit check if I needed to move home, causing my two children and I to become homeless.

28. Jacob asked if I could provide copies of the change-of-address notes I had previously sent to Premier Park. I emailed scans of these the following day, 15 February 2019. Over the course of the next few days Premier Park made requests for further documents, such as the proof of postage, copies of the other letters I had sent to them, my tenancy agreement, and even the email from the letting agent that confirmed I knew I would be moving before all the paperwork had been finalised.

29. Although I provided everything that Premier Park asked of me, Premier Park would not consent to setting aside the judgement.

30. On 20 February 2019 I received an email asking if I could provide further proof of my new address, such as a Council Tax bill. I fully cooperated with the request.

31. In order to make this application to the court, on 22 February 2019 I made a GDPR subject access request to Premier Park. Premier Park informed me that they would provide this 'promptly'.

32. The following week, on 26 February 2019 I had a phone conversation with Jacob regarding the subject access request. He informed me that it could take 30 days.

33. At this point it became clear that I could not wait for Premier Park to provide the subject access request information before making my application to the court, especially as I knew I would require a considerable amount of time to write it, due to my mental health difficulties and the fact that I would need to find someone to assist me. I am therefore making this application without the information I requested.

GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

34. Rule 6.9(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that the claim should be served at the Defendant's usual or last known residence. My address changed in April 2018, and I informed the Claimant of this in writing on 03 April 2018 and again on 08 May 2018 (Pages XX of XX1). These letters to the Claimant were correctly addressed and marked. Therefore the "last known residence" was my new address of [NEW ADDRESS]. Instead the Claimant used a previous address, [OLD ADDRESS].

35. As earlier mentioned in my statement, the Claimant denies having received both letters informing it of my change of address. Given that I was in correspondence with the Claimant prior to the change of residence, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Claimant ought to have had some reasonable suspicion for the lack of responses to further letters and any letter before action.

36. CPR 6.9(4)(a) states that if the current address has been ascertained, then the claim form should be served there but, 6.9(4)(b) goes on to say that if the claimant is unable to ascertain the current address, then a claimant must consider whether there is either (i) an alternative place or (ii) an alternative method by which service may be effected. The Claimant did none of these. CPR 6.9 says that a claimant must consider (4)(a)(i) and (ii) and, had the Claimant done some reasonable checks it would have known I had another address at which I could be served.

37. It is my reasonable belief that the Claimant did not carry out reasonable checks (if any) in order to obtain my current address in accordance with Rule 6.9(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 6.9(3) provides that the Claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address, if the Claimant has reason to believe that the address they hold is one where the Defendant no longer resides. The Claimant should therefore have taken steps to locate me, such as using a tracing service to find an updated address. However there is no evidence that the Claimant made any attempt to locate me, by, for example, making searches on the electoral roll or checking with credit reference agencies, or engaging enquiry agents to do so. Any such attempts would have succeeded, as I was ‘there to be found’.

38. I also submit my reasonable belief that the Claimant's failure to obtain my current address is part of a pattern of behaviour of repeatedly failing to use correct and current addresses. The address on the original PCN (page xx of XX1) was misspelt '[MISSPELT OLD ADDRESS]' instead of '[OLD ADDRESS]'. After the default judgement, the correspondence I received from the Claimant (Page xx of XX1) had an address that was partially correct, but still incorrect. The Claimant used the correct street name but the wrong door number and wrong post code. This is despite credit reference agencies, the DVLA and the electoral register all holding my accurate address, as I updated all of my details correctly on the relevant databases. I suggest that this was either a remarkable degree of carelessness on the part of the Claimant, or the Claimant consciously amended the address.

39. CPR 13.2 states that the court must set aside a judgment entered under Part 12 if (a) in the case of a judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service, any of the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied. CPR 12.1 explains that ‘default judgment’ means judgment without trial where a defendant (a) has failed to file an acknowledgment of service. 12.3(1) goes on to say:
12.3(1) The claimant may obtain judgment in default of an acknowledgement of service only if:-
(a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence to the claim; and
(b) the relevant time for doing so has expired.
Since the Claimant failed to comply with CPR 6.9, service of the claim form was defective and therefore invalid. The time for acknowledging the claim form cannot begin until the claim has been properly served. It therefore follows that, contrary to CPR 12.3(1), the relevant time for acknowledging service did not expire. As such, the judgment was wrongly entered and the default judgment must be set aside.

40. There are also grounds for setting aside the default judgement under CPR 13.3. Where no claim form is received, the Court has discretion to set aside the default judgment as explained by May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 (at para. 49):

Rule 13.3(1)(b) has a disjunctive alternative, so that the court may set aside or vary judgment entered in default if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside or varied or the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. In my view, this is plainly capable of extending to circumstances where the defendant has not received the claim form and particulars of claim before judgment was entered against him. It is not an absolute right, but does not have to depend on the defendant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The court therefore has sufficient power to do justice in these cases and will, no doubt, normally exercise this discretion in favour of a defendant who establishes that he had no knowledge of the claim before judgment in default was entered unless it is pointless to do so.

41. As I did not receive the claim form, the court should set aside the default judgment as per May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council.

CONCLUSION

42. In the circumstances, I respectfully ask the Court to set aside the judgment under 13.2(a) or 13.3(1)(b) of the CPR, or both.

I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

Dated:

Urgent: setting aside CCJ, Premier Park denies that I told them I changed address

Urgent: setting aside CCJ, Premier Park denies that I told them I changed address

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?