Set aside with consent - Parking Eye

Coupon-mad

This is what happens almost every time to people now that there are no paper 'tax disks' sent by post.  Not your fault, this is seen all the time on this forum.  Why not email and ask P/Eye about what they need to consent to setting aside this CCJ and also, can they please send you a copy of the Notice to Keeper and note that your current address is xxxxxxxxxx. 

Tell them to erase the old address immediately and send you a copy of the NTK and explain what the alleged contravention was.

You may find you have very good grounds for defending the claim that might change your mind about your chances of a set aside (e.g. maybe it was a double dip)?

AliceNich

Coupon-mad said:

This is what happens almost every time to people now that there are no paper 'tax disks' sent by post.  Not your fault, this is seen all the time on this forum.  Why not email and ask P/Eye about what they need to consent to setting aside this CCJ and also, can they please send you a copy of the Notice to Keeper and note that your current address is xxxxxxxxxx. 

Tell them to erase the old address immediately and send you a copy of the NTK and explain what the alleged contravention was.

You may find you have very good grounds for defending the claim that might change your mind about your chances of a set aside (e.g. maybe it was a double dip)?

Thank you - it’s such a frustrating system, isn’t it? I sent a SAR request by post yesterday asking for all this info just in case I can find a valid argument for a set aside/dismissal of the PCN. I’m just concerned that this will be a lonnnng process and I was planning to apply for a mortgage next year. 

Do you have any tips on how I might word the email? I’ve been warned by other forums/sources that ParkingEye are the most litigious of the private parking groups and I’m (as you can probably tell) pretty inexperienced with all this. 

Coupon-mad

Do you have any tips on how I might word the email?

Just what I said!   
As well as being litigious, ParkingEye are actually one of the more reasonable firms...they will respond to you and you ned to see what the alleged contravention was, for starters, as well as knowing what they want you to pay in order to get them to consent.  

This could all be done before XMas.

AliceNich

Coupon-mad said:

Do you have any tips on how I might word the email?

Just what I said!   
As well as being litigious, ParkingEye are actually one of the more reasonable firms...they will respond to you and you ned to see what the alleged contravention was, for starters, as well as knowing what they want you to pay in order to get them to consent.  

This could all be done before XMas.

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. Am I best to wait for the SAR response before I ask them about consent, or just ask for consent now? 

Coupon-mad

Crack on but you missed my point, you are not asking for consent exactly, you are putting the feelers out.

You are asking for the NTK and what the contravention was, and what their terms of consent would be, so you can make an informed decision about WHETHER to go that route or whether the claim was unfair (e.g. ANPR fault, two visits in on 24hr period, for example, which NO-ONE would pay).

AliceNich

Coupon-mad said:

Crack on but you missed my point, you are not asking for consent exactly, you are putting the feelers out.

You are asking for the NTK and what the contravention was, and what their terms of consent would be, so you can make an informed decision about WHETHER to go that route or whether the claim was unfair (e.g. ANPR fault, two visits in on 24hr period, for example, which NO-ONE would pay).

Ahh apologies. Thank you! That makes sense. I appreciate your help. 

KeithP

AliceNich said:

I know I should have updated my V5C so appreciate not receiving the letters could be seen as my fault. 

Alternatively, because ParkingEye received absolutely no response to letters sent to your old address, they should've checked to make sure that they had a good address for you.

AliceNich

KeithP said:

AliceNich said:

I know I should have updated my V5C so appreciate not receiving the letters could be seen as my fault. 

Alternatively, because ParkingEye received absolutely no response to letters sent to your old address, they should've checked to make sure that they had a good address for you.

Thank you. This is how I feel but I’m doubtful that this would hold up in front of a judge as legally they only have to send info to your last known address as recorded by the DVLA. I do find that ridiculous though considering I updated my licence, council tax, transferred utilities, billing address, car insurance, joined the electoral role etc as soon as I moved. Hopefully this procedure will change in the future as it is so unfair - especially seeing as the DVLA did technically have my current address as per my updated driving licence.  

Coupon-mad

This is how I feel but I’m doubtful that this would hold up in front of a judge as legally they only have to send info to your last known address as recorded by the DVLA.

Not true. Who told you that?

Legally, they MUST do more. They must take reasonable steps to find out if it is the right address, given the silence that is a reason to believe that this is not the right address for service. We've seen loads of set asides granted in your position.  You appear to have missed this too:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

Parking firms were singled out for deliberately doing this.

AliceNich

Coupon-mad said:

This is how I feel but I’m doubtful that this would hold up in front of a judge as legally they only have to send info to your last known address as recorded by the DVLA.

Not true. Who told you that?

Legally, they MUST do more. They must take reasonable steps to find out if it is the right address, given the silence that is a reason to believe that this is not the right address for service. We've seen loads of set asides granted in your position.  You appear to have missed this too:

[can’t post the link] 

Parking firms were singled out for deliberately doing this.

I was told this by a ‘specialist’ from Debtline on Tuesday (not being sarcastic- just unsure of the actual title). So, do you think I could argue on these grounds? 

Interesting read from Parking Cowboys - thanks. I actually downloaded to consultation they refer to yesterday and it did have some useful info in there, but seemed to be discussing what ‘could change’ in terms of parking firms having to make more checks, rather that what has changed? I might have (and hope I have) got the wrong end of the stick though?