Parking Eye unknown CCJ set aside help

Le_Kirk

frew198 said:

low LO and behold just received the below from Parking Eye any thoughts as to what my best option is now?

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

ParkingEye did not receive any response to 4 letters that were sent to the address held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. This was also the same address to which the County Court Claim Form was sent, to which you also failed to respond, resulting in a judgment in default being registered in favour of the Claimant. If this address is not correct, the Claimant had no reasonable way of knowing this.

As a direct result of any inaction, ParkingEye has since incurred significant further costs. However, as a gesture of goodwill, ParkingEye is willing to consent to the setting aside of the judgment in default given the evidence provided, predicated upon you making payment for both ParkingEye’s costs of £267 within 14 days of receiving a sealed copy of the Court Order, and the fee for submitting the application to the Court, which would also amount to £100 and be payable to Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. 

Please find attached the countersigned proposed Tomlin Order for you to file and with the Court.

Please note that the Claimant has signed this so as not to appear unreasonable. We hold no responsibility should this not be approved by the Court as the final decision rests with the presiding Judge.

it boils down to a financial comparison.  If you accept PE's offer, it will cost you £367; if you go for a contested set-aside hearing it will cost you £255.  Both have a prospect (if you think you can successfully defend the original claim) of having all your costs refunded.  There are regulars on the forum who would say that you should never agree to pay the original speculative invoice.

Umkomaas

ParkingEye did not receive any response to 4 letters that were sent to the address held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. This was also the same address to which the County Court Claim Form was sent, to which you also failed to respond, resulting in a judgment in default being registered in favour of the Claimant. If this address is not correct, the Claimant had no reasonable way of knowing this.

You might want to remind them of what their BPA Code of Practice says. They surely are following that to the letter after what the Supreme Court judges said in their case against Barry Beavis!  

They had every warning possible that you might no longer be at the address to which they were writing, given no response to any of their communications. And there is plenty of technology available to them to help them do that. If you have a less than usual surname, then that further eases their problem of tracing you - remind them of that.

24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.

Redx

If the claimant had no reasonable way of knowing this , then that should have been the red flag to initiate a tracing service like Trace or similar to trace your current address !! The fact it's in the BPA CoP being another hint !!

frew198

Seems to me like I press on without consent - the amount they ask for is actually more than the CCJ was issued for

Umkomaas

frew198 said:

Seems to me like I press on without consent - the amount they ask for is actually more than the CCJ was issued for

I'd remind them in your response to their 'offer' of a consent order, that you will now press ahead with a fully contested application and you will be asking the Judge to order PE to pay your £255 application fee given their lack of attention in tracing you (in clear and flagrant disregard for their Accredited Trade Association's Code of Practice) before issuing proceedings and gaining a judgment in default against you.

Coupon-mad

frew198 said:

Seems to me like I press on without consent - the amount they ask for is actually more than the CCJ was issued for

In that case, I would add that fact to your witness statement and state that you are asking for a hearing to set aside the CCJ without consent because you have made every effort to resolve this at a lower cost but the terms the Claimant was prepared to consent to the set aside for were unacceptable because they included an inflated amount, over and above the CCJ sum, and they effectively admitted to failing to abide by the BPA's Code of Practice, which says:

24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NTD/NTK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.

Given that they did not follow this, issued letters where they blindly relied upon the (known to be unreliable in many cases) DVLA data, proceeded to issue a claim to the same address without any checks (as far as the Defendant is aware) and and are not prepared to consent without additional cost, the Defendant wishes to defend the claim.   The Parking ticket relates to a hotel car park where I was on business with a number of others on the 29/01/19. Having checked with one of the other colleagues they received a Parking charge notice but had this overturned as we were customers at the Hotel having a meeting.  The PCN was wrongly issued in that the mechanism (whatever it was meant to be) for exempting the cars of Hotel patrons, failed, or was not prominently advertised by the Claimant, and there are good prospects of success, because after being contacted by the Hotel on behalf of the guests who did get a PCN in the post, the Claimant could easily have identified all the PCNs issued during that short period that day, but chose not to.  And the Claimant will likely be aware that hidden keypads inside Hotels are a notorious trap, and just the sort of 'concealed pitfall' that the Supreme Court mentioned in the Beavis case.

Ralph-y

OP , can I please ask if you are using the parkinglie email address the CM gave you early on in the thread?

Ralph

frew198

First of all thanks very much for the above it's all really valuable . I shall reply to notify them I will be asking to set aside without consent
@Coupon-mad would you add some of your quoted text below to the witness statement or forming part of the draft defence? Sorry may be a stupid question just a little unsure which part it should adapted into 

Given that they did not follow this, issued letters where they blindly relied upon the (known to be unreliable in many cases) DVLA data, proceeded to issue a claim to the same address without any checks (as far as the Defendant is aware) and and are not prepared to consent without additional cost, the Defendant wishes to defend the claim.   The Parking ticket relates to a hotel car park where I was on business with a number of others on the 29/01/19. Having checked with one of the other colleagues they received a Parking charge notice but had this overturned as we were customers at the Hotel having a meeting.  The PCN was wrongly issued in that the mechanism (whatever it was meant to be) for exempting the cars of Hotel patrons, failed, or was not prominently advertised by the Claimant, and there are good prospects of success, because after being contacted by the Hotel on behalf of the guests who did get a PCN in the post, the Claimant could easily have identified all the PCNs issued during that short period that day, but chose not to.  And the Claimant will likely be aware that hidden keypads inside Hotels are a notorious trap, and just the sort of 'concealed pitfall' that the Supreme Court mentioned in the Beavis case.

frew198

Ralph-y said:

OP , can I please ask if you are using the parkinglie email address the CM gave you early on in the thread?

Ralph

Yes, I am

Coupon-mad

I wrote that for your witness statement, so yes, add it all but where I have said 'you' then if course it needs changing to ''I'' in the final version.