CCJ from parking eye but they deliberately sent to old address

Quentin

nicolanicola wrote: »

So just tried ringing PE. Can only get through to automatic payment line. Today is my last day of the one calendar month. I cannot speak to anyone to find out if I can pay it and if they'll let the court know to remove the CCJ.

If you have decided to pay it off then that doesn't prevent you going for a set aside by consent - if the creditor agrees. (assuming you are going to be impacted by having this on your record - for the next 6 years - and want it removed)

nic_c

Quentin wrote: »

That wouldn't mean a set aside application based on the fact that the defendant knew nothing of the claim would fail!

No, but if PE are able to show they did due diligence by requesting the address from the DVLA, it would be harder. It also wouldn't mean the end of the debt and a claim form could then be issued to the new address.

Quentin

nic_c wrote: »

No, but if PE are able to show they did due diligence by requesting the address from the DVLA, it would be harder. It also wouldn't mean the end of the debt and a claim form could then be issued to the new address.

You are guessing about what happened. As has been posted it's unlikely this ccj is to do with the OP's very recently issued PCN

The claimant may have done "due diligence" for what it's worth by originally getting the keeper details from DVLA. But the claim was issued long after that!

It's been explained to the op that winning a set aside allows the creditor to start the claim again

pappa_golf

nic_c wrote: »

No, but if PE are able to show they did due diligence by requesting the address from the DVLA, it would be harder. It also wouldn't mean the end of the debt and a claim form could then be issued to the new address.

as posted back on page one of this thread PE can only apply for the owners details once from the DVLA (parking ticket cases) , due diligence??? PE are in the same group of companies as equita (debt collectors) , who have in the past located addresses quite legally

The_Deep

The OP claims in the thread title that PE deliberately sent the papers to the wrong address. Personally, I find that very difficult to believe.


However, If he/she can prove this to be the case, I do not see why that cannot sue PE for a substantial sum.

Redx

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There would have a penalty notice issued and attached to the car at the time.

the above statement reminds me of that "bull@@@@" button on THE LAST LEG

PARKING EYE cannot issue a penalty notice , nor do they , not on a windscreen and not by post either

PARKING EYE can and do issue parking charge notices , usually these are postal notices following supervision using ANPR cameras on unmanned car parks

they rarely have an employee onsite and so rarely issue a windscreen ticket

there is no doubt in my mind that PE will have sent a postal notice pcn a year or two ago about some long forgotten parking event. this is the one that will have raised the court case and CCJ

anything more recent is a second and separate incident , nothing to do with the CCJ being discussed here

if any or all of these pcn`s are PE, then they will be ANPR camera monitored car parks with postal notices being sent out

PE are well known for enforcement using this system , as can be seen in this parking prankster blog

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/parkingeye-employee-reveals-their-rape.html

the ideal solution here is a set aside for £255 with refund and then get the original parking charge dealt with

and has been said earlier, THEReSA MAY said this would be dealt with some 8 months ago, when she passed it on to MARCUS JONES , so you should be contacting them about it as yours is a classic case study of the malpractice that exists here

also MICHAEL GREEN has a class action group for issues like this , so see parking pranksters blogs and contact that action group too

this is not a new phenomenon , but it has been brewing for a few years and its time these people mentioned actually did something about it , because its a credit clamp sc@m, one that replaced the car cl@mping sc@m and one that MP,s have engineered and the SUPREME COURT didnt help in the PE versus BEAVIS case 20 months ago either

Coupon-mad

nicolanicola wrote: »

they deliberately must have sent them to my old address.

They sent all letters prior to the CCJ to my current address so why is the CCJ at my old address I haven't lived at for over a year?

So PE knew your new address and used it, then deliberately used the old address for the court claim?

Atrocious but unsurprising (how terrible to think the Supreme Court actively changed the penalty rule to support this business model; it's an embarrassment to this Country and to the justice system).

Same advice as this case:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5676532

...whether you go on to defend it, will depend on whether your case is similar to the Beavis case or not. Either way, you can get it set aside if you go well prepped to the set aside hearing, as it sounds like you are too late to just pay it now.

There is no evidence of 'due diligence' from ParkingEye in this case.

Quentin

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So PE knew your new address and used it, then deliberately used the old address for the court claim? .......

It does look as though the ccj relates to an older pcn, and not the recent one the op has been getting recent correspondence about.

Coupon-mad

OK. Even so, ParkingEye as a company, knew the correct address for this individual. They are perfectly capable of cross-referencing to other PCN data, and they do sometimes, when bringing more than one ticket to court in one claim.

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So PE knew your new address and used it, then deliberately used the old address for the court claim?

Atrocious but unsurprising (how terrible to think the Supreme Court actively changed the penalty rule to support this business model; it's an embarrassment to this Country and to the justice system).

Same advice as this case:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5676532

...whether you go on to defend it, will depend on whether your case is similar to the Beavis case or not. Either way, you can get it set aside if you go well prepped to the set aside hearing, as it sounds like you are too late to just pay it now.

There is no evidence of 'due diligence' from ParkingEye in this case.

It's up there with not prosecuting someone for espionage / treason and helping kill 45000+ people with a weapon of mass destruction I think.