ParkingEye Default CCJ

LDast

Why on earth would you want to be liable to pay the cost of the set aside which is compulsory under CPR 13.2 when the shysters at PE are trying to con you into paying for their mistakes by agreeing to an order for set aside under the discretionary CPR 13.3.

DO not sign or agree to that order. You should respond in writing to confirm in no uncertain terms that you DO NOT agree with or consent to the claimants draft order. You must make it absolutely clear so that they do not try to dupe the court at the set aside hearing.

Coupon-mad

Agreed.

Be ready to say 'no Judge, that is not agreed by me and does not match my application at all' if the Judge on the day brightly greets you saying 'Good news, this will be simple!  The Claimant has consented to your application'.

We've had people walked all over by a Judge before now, who has been keen to accept the draft Order from the Claimant which gets the Claimant out of paying the Defendant's costs.  This despite the fact that the CCJ and application is fully caused by the parking firm/agents breaching the BPA CoP by failing to check correspondence addresses with an online 'Soft Trace' offered by Credit Ref agencies in bulk for as little as 28 pence.

Further, as soon as you discovered the CCJ, you emailed ParkingEye inviting them to do a join set aside.

11 December 2024: ParkingEye refused.  TAKE THAT PROOF WITH YOU.  

That conduct is unreasonable.  Your costs MUST be paid by the lazy Claimant. They used an old DVLA address, ignored the lack of reply (a silence which was in itself, sufficient hint / 'reason to believe' that their letters were not being served to a current address) and ignored the BPA mandatory requirement to check the Defendant's address before litigation - DVLA addresses cannot be accessed twice, so this has to involve a CRA Soft Trace - then (astonishingly) refused the consent to CCJ set aside that you suggested ... and only proposed one after forcing you to spend £303!

Brace yourself for a silly start to the Hearing.  Assume the Judge will initially be taken in by ParkingEye.

You only have half an hour and MUST show that the Claimant has acted unreasonably, breached the BPA Code and breached the PAP and CPRs by not taking reasonable steps to check an address. It is NOT acceptable to merely run with unreliable, unverified DVLA vehicle reg addresses, months later.  Don't let the Judge say that is the only thing a parking firm has to do (obtain an address at the start, from the DVLA).  No, it actually isn't.

A Soft Trace is mandatory in the BPA Code (find the clause about checking details of the Defendant before litigation, be ready to point it out - in the Oct 2024 Code).There was also 'reason to believe' you were not at that address if ParkingEye letters were not receiving any reply.

That 'reason to believe' means the Claimant MUST take reasonable steps to check the address by other means.  Costs 28 pence, for Goodness sake!  The CPRs cover this requirement:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06

THE CURRENT RULE

The current CPR 6.9 (3)

(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

THE RULES GOES ON

(4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –

(a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or

(b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is –

(i) an alternative place where; or

(ii) an alternative method by which,

service may be effected.

(5) If, under paragraph (4)(b), there is such a place where or a method by which service may be effected, the claimant must make an application under rule 6.15.

(6) Where paragraph (3) applies, the claimant may serve on the defendant’s usual or last known address in accordance with the table in paragraph (2) where the claimant –

(a) cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence or place of business; and

(b) cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method under paragraph (4)(b).”

THE ISSUES THAT ARISE

There are a number of issues here:

•  When does a claimant have “reason to believe” that the defendant no longer resides or carry on business at that address. Is this an objective or subjective test?
• What are the “reasonable steps” that a claimant has to take?

Well the answer to that second question is easy in a parking case because the BPA Code says what the requirement is! i.e. the new address was knowledge which he could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence for a few pence, and by complying with the BPA Code of Practice 2024.

The rule change was introduced to essentially, codify, the comments made in Smith –v- Hughes and the MIB the tranche of cases considered by the Court of Appeal and reported as Cranfield -v- Bridgegrove [2003] EWCA Civ 656.   The old rules allowed a claimant to serve on the “last known residence”, with none of the requirements to take reasonable steps that now exist in (4),(5) and (6) set out above.

A claimant remains vulnerable if they cannot show that they have taken “reasonable steps” to find the defendant or an alternative address for service.  ParkingEye has failed to show that any steps were taken. Even worse: they knew what they'd done but REFUSED your offer to agree to consent to the CCJ set aside, in December, then rushed to mock up a Consent Order in January when faced with having to pay your £303 costs! 

If struggling, draw the Judge's attention to the notes in the White Book (the Judge always has a copy) which describe this requirement (or perhaps the drafting) as “ugly” and note that the provisions could be harsh, emphasising the importance of taking the steps outlined in CPR 6.9 (3).

I presume you have all this in your WS?  Be really familiar with it.

To assist the Judge to see all this, you could submit a skeleton argument before the hearing stating all of the above, attaching your emailed request and ParkingEye's refusal (December) and attaching VCS v Carr (Court of Appeal, 2024) as well, if your WS didn't mention it. AND attaching your costs Assessment for the application fee and attendance at this hearing, and proof of your hourly/daily rate of pay (AND that Draft Order if you didn't file & serve it already).

cc in ParkingEye, if this was a claim filed by them in-house

How much is the CCJ?  £197?

Did you get a copy of the POC from the CNBC?  Show us.

miffy_mulled_win

Thanks, as always, for the sound advice!

I will make it very obvious that I do NOT accept their Order by email now. Is it worth me CCing in the court enquiries email address in my response or do I make copies of this correspondence and include it with the mails showing them declining my offer to set aside in Dec 24 in my bundle for next Thursday?

My WS only briefly mentioned CPR 6.9 as seen below:
2.1. I believe the Claimant did not comply with CPR 6.9 regarding service of the claim form. As I had moved from the address used by the Claimant prior to the claim being issued, service at that address was ineffective. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain my current address.

So in my Skeleton Argument I will add The current CPR 6.9 (3) and the parts mentioned under your comment "THE RULES GO ON".

Do I include "THE ISSUES THAT ARISE" above or is that you coaching me on how to talk about CPR 6.9 (3 + 4) in a way that it sounds like I know what I'm talking about with the judge?

The amount ParkingEye wanted me to pay to when I discovered the CCJ was £232. I never received the POC. ParkingEye issued the county court order on 14/10/2024 which the told me in an email when I tried to appeal to them directly. See excerpt below:

"Parkingeye thereafter issued a county court claim on 14/10/2024 to recover the outstanding amount. However, as no defence was filed, nor was full payment received within the applicable time frame, the court granted a default judgment in Parkingeye’s favour."

Should I phone CNBC and request the POC is emailed to me ASAP? It's technically not been 4 months yet but I'm not sure if that stops me?

Also, what do I do with the POC, is that only to gather more specifics for my defence?

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Include the emails proving they declined you offer to consent to set aside, with the skeleton argument, and refer to it by clearly saying that there is no question that the conduct is wholly unreasonable and directly caused you a £303 loss.  Make sure this skeleton is emailed this week.

Add in VCS v Carr (search the forum for that transcript, as you need the words to copy about it - for your skelly - and the actual judgment from the Court of appeal because it is UNREPORTED and will not be findable by the Judge).

Copy in enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

"THE ISSUES THAT ARISE" is very suitable structure for a skeleton argument, which is not a submission but a legal summary to help the Judge.  You don't put a statement of truth on it, but can sign/date it at the bottom.

Should I phone CNBC and request the POC is emailed to me ASAP?

Actually you don't need it because I can work out from the £232 that this was a PEye in-house claim, broken down as follows:

PCN £100

Fake added 'admin fee' £25

Claim filing fee £35

Legal fees £50

Default judgment fee £22.


Is the site a hospital, hotel or what?

Oh, you should add this to your skeleton argument as well:

The quantum of this claim is exaggerated and penal:

Whilst the claim form was never served, it is apparent from the high amount of the CCJ (£232) that the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim.  This sum was neither incurred as damages, nor as a valid fee, and nor was it part of any agreed contract. The signs at this car park are sporadically placed on eight foot high poles but any PCN sum here is £100. The £125 charge imposed is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty.

The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis is reason enough to disallow the claim. The added £25 is plucked out of thin air and must fail for these reasons:

i)  The added £25 does not appear in the contract (the sign) and

ii)  in view of the binding decision at the High Court (later appealed but the HC decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB):

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff76260d03e7f57eabf43

The Defendant's position is that this claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100,193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and with specific reliance upon para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in Somerfield, which is unaffected by Beavis. In the former case, the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increased ultimately to £135. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty (sitting as a HCJ) found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' infamous Supreme Court parking case.

miffy_mulled_win

You're amazing, thank you @Coupon-mad!

It is a small parking lot in Peterborough town centre. It's a standalone site. Should I go take photos of the signage there, I see that suggested in many other posts, would it apply/help here too?

Last question before I finalize my skelly. Should I still mention CPR13.2? I didn't have it in my WS. My skelly currently starts with the below but it was copied from another post before your replies today:

Under CPR 13.2, the Court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. As the Defendant did not give an address to the Claimant at which the claim could be served at (because the defendant was not asked), CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

I will be adding your "The current CPR 6.9 (3)" and "the rules go on" that you supplied above this as that seems to make sense to start with CPR 6.9, the go into how CPR 13.2 applies based on 6.9(3) not being met.

Coupon-mad

Should I go take photos of the signage there, I see that suggested in many other posts, would it apply/help here too?

Not needed at this stage.  You are not defending against the PCN at this hearing, which is a mandatory set aside and your main job will be to drag the Judge to realise that you MUST be granted all your costs.

Last question before I finalize my skelly. Should I still mention CPR13.2? 

Yep.  Good wording at the start.  It is imperative that the Judge applies CPR 13.2.  As @LDast says: "the shysters at PE are trying to con you into paying for their mistakes by agreeing to an order for set aside under the discretionary CPR 13.3."  So make it crystal clear that NO, this is a MANDATORY set aside.  No discretion: must be set aside.

miffy_mulled_win

Hello! 

Thank you again for all the assistance. I have prepared a draft order and skeleton argument to supplement my original WS (posted below as sent last year because I didn't get the chance to send for feedback) to the best of my ability but, by all means, rip it to shreds to get me into a lean, mean, default CCJ hearing machine!

DRAFT ORDER

Claim No:  XXXXXX

Between

Parking Eye Limited (Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX (Defendant)

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT

UPON considering the application of the Defendant to set aside the Judgment by default entered on 12/11/2024;

AND UPON reading the evidence in support of the application;

AND UPON the court taking note that the Claimant was not entitled to default judgment, having failed to serve on the Defendant's current address;

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated 12/11/2024 (CLAIM No: XXXXXX) be set aside. 

2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application in the sum of £303. 

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXXX, of XXXX, make this statement in support of my application dated 16/12/2024 to set aside the default judgment dated 12/11/2024 with claim number XXXXXX.

I request that:

a. Set aside the default judgment dated 12/11/2024 as it was not properly served at my current address.

b. The Court allow me to defend the claim.

c. Order for the claimant to pay the defendant £303 as reimbursement for the set aside fee.

1. Default Judgment:

1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

1.2. I understand that the Claimant, Parking Eye Limited, obtained a Default Judgment against me on 12/11/2024 I understand the claim relates to an alleged unpaid parking charge. I intend to defend this claim for the reasons outlined in my attached draft defence.

1.3. The claim form was not served at my current address. I was not aware of the Default Judgment until 01/12/2024, when I checked my credit report via NatWest banking app, 01/12/2024.

1.4. In addition to the above, it should be highlighted that my integrity and law-abiding intention should be taken into consideration on the basis that;

1.4.1 I discovered a CCJ was lodged onto my credit file on 01/12/2024.

1.4.2 On 02/12/2024 I contacted the County Court Business Centre to obtain relevant information relating to this default judgement.

1.4.3. On 02/12/2024 I contacted the claimant informing them that I had discovered a County Court Junction based on an alleged unpaid parking charge. I invited the claimant to join me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with the Claimant paying the court fee and no order as to costs. They refused the invitation.

1.4.3 On 16/12/2024 I wilfully submitted my case in order to set-aside this judgement and fairly present my case.

1.5. The address used on the claim form was XXXX, which was my previous address. I moved to my current address, XXXX, on 30/06/2024.

1.6. To evidence my change of address, I provide the following documents:

Exhibit A - Energy bill dated 25 July 2024 showing my address as XXXX.

Exhibit B - Council Tax bill for 15/08/2024 – 31/03/2025 showing my address as XXXX.

2. Lack of Service and CPR 6.9:

2.1. I believe the Claimant did not comply with CPR 6.9 regarding service of the claim form. As I had moved from the address used by the Claimant prior to the claim being issued, service at that address was ineffective. The claimant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain my current address.

2.2. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

3. Application to Set Aside:

3.1. Due to the lack of proper service, I was unable to defend the claim. I believe the Default Judgment was issued incorrectly and should be set aside.

3.2. I respectfully request the Court to:

*   Set aside the Default Judgment.

*   Allow me to defend the claim.

*   Order the Claimant to pay my application fee of £303.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: 

Dated: 16/12/2024

miffy_mulled_win

And here is my skeleton argument... Please let me know if you feel I am inundating the judge with info. Can I make this more concise in any way? Have I titled the sections and put the relevant info into those sections as is expected? £535 and a bad credit score is riding on this so my nerves and judgement are a bit shot!

Also, do I need to download entire case law that I'm referring to and print out copies as well as send the documents to the Judge in preparation for the hearing? I have a printer, but dang, that's going to be a LOT of pages. If I attach it to my mail, does that suffice?

Lastly, you suggested I should add, "The quantum of this claim is exaggerated and penal". Do I need to change my draft order to mention this, or anything else. After reading it several times, it seems like you're suggesting this is grounds for the claim to be struck out or am I mistaken? If so, what do I need to amend/append?

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT PETERBOROUGH

Claim No.:  XXXXXX

Between

Parking Eye Limited (Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXX (Defendant)

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. Introduction

1.1 This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment dated 12/11/2024, pursuant to CPR 13.2.  

1.2 The Defendant contends that the judgment was improperly obtained as the Court claim was served at an address where the Defendant did not reside at the time, despite the Defendant's council tax, utility bills and V5C vehicle license being registered at the correct current address.

1.3 The Claimant has acted unreasonably by refusing the Defendant’s prompt invitation to do a joint set aside which was emailed to the Claimant the day after the Defendant had discovered the CCJ via a credit reference agency check 01/12/2024. Only after a court hearing was setup did the Claimant offer to consent to setting aside the judgement to avoid covering the Defendant’s hearing setup costs.

2. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICATION 

2.1 CPR 13.2 (Mandatory Setting Aside)

- Under CPR 13.2, the Court must set aside a judgment entered under part 12 if judgment was wrongly entered. Given that CPR 6.9 (3) was not met, CPR 13.2 applies and the CCJ should be set aside. As the Defendant did not give an address to the Claimant at which the claim could be served at (because the defendant was not asked), CPR 6.9 applies. CPR 6.9 stipulates that an "Individual" should be served at their "Usual or last known residence."

2.2 CPR 6.9 (3) (Service of the claim form where the defendant does not give an address at which the defendant may be served)

(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

The rule goes on

(4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –

(a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or

(b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is –

(i) an alternative place where; or

(ii) an alternative method by which,

service may be effected.

(5) If, under paragraph (4)(b), there is such a place where or a method by which service may be effected, the claimant must make an application under rule 6.15.

(6) Where paragraph (3) applies, the claimant may serve on the defendant’s usual or last known address in accordance with the table in paragraph (2) where the claimant –

(a) cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence or place of business; and

(b) cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method under paragraph (4)(b).”

3. THE ISSUES THAT ARISE

3.1   What are the “reasonable steps” that a claimant has to take?

- As a member of the British Parking Association (Membership Number 30189), it is mandatory for the Claimant to do a ‘soft credit check’ before commencing enforcement action:

“10 - Action to recover unpaid parking charges:

- 10.1 If a driver, keeper or hire company does not respond to a notice or subsequent correspondence, or a parking charge has not been paid in full, reasonable endeavours - including contacting credit reference agencies to undertake a ‘soft credit check’ - must be undertaken by the parking operator and/or its appointed debt resolution agent to establish the correct correspondence details of the driver, keeper or hire company before commencing enforcement action

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

Had the Claimant done their obligated due diligence, they would have found the Defendant’s current address which was reported to credit reference agency TransUnion as early as June 2024, before the alleged parking infringement took place.

The Claimant remains vulnerable if they cannot show that they have taken “reasonable steps” to find the Defendant or an alternative address for service.

3.2 The quantum of this claim is exaggerated and penal
- Whilst the claim form was never served, it is apparent from the high amount of the CCJ (£232) that the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim.  This sum was neither incurred as damages, nor as a valid fee, and nor was it part of any agreed contract. The signs at this car park are sporadically placed on eight foot high poles but any PCN sum here is £100. The £125 charge imposed is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty.

The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis is reason enough to disallow the claim. The added £25 is plucked out of thin air and must fail for these reasons:

i)  The added £25 does not appear in the contract (the sign) and

ii)  in view of the binding decision at the High Court (later appealed but the HC decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB):

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff76260d03e7f57eabf43

The Defendant's position is that this claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100,193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and with specific reliance upon para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in Somerfield, which is unaffected by Beavis. In the former case, the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increased ultimately to £135. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty (sitting as a HCJ) found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' infamous Supreme Court parking case.

4. EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING CASE LAW  

4.1 Claim Sent to an Old Address

- The Defendant’s council, utility bills and vehicle licence were registered at XXXXXX at the time the Court claim was issued. The Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to locate the Defendant's correct address, as required under CPR 6.9(3).

See evidence attached of address change:

- Exhibit A - DVLA_address_change_12-July-2024.pdf

- Exhibit B - checkmyfile_June-2024_address_update.pdf

- Exhibit C - Utility Bill 25 July 2024.pdf

- Exhibit D - Council Tax bill - 15 August - 31 March 2025.pdf

4.2 Judicial Precedents  

 - In Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carr (Ref. CA-2024-001179), the court held that a claim sent to an outdated address does not constitute valid service, reinforcing the necessity for Claimants to ensure correct service.  

See particulars of the case attached:

- Exhibit F - VCSvCarr_Case Details for CA-2024-001179.pdf

4.3 Correspondence between Defendant and Claimant showing Claimant’s invitation refusal to do a joint set aside.

See evidence attached:

- Exhibit G - joint_set_aside_invitation_and_refusal.pdf

5. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SETTING ASIDE 

5.1 Improper Service 

- As established, the claim was sent to an address where the Defendant did not reside. The judgment is therefore void under CPR 13.2.

5.2 Interests of Justice  

- Allowing the judgment to stand would result in significant prejudice to the Defendant. Setting it aside ensures a fair opportunity to defend the case.  

6. RELIEF SOUGHT

6.1 The Defendant respectfully requests the court to:

1. The default judgment dated 12/11/2024 (CLAIM No: XXXXXX) be set aside. 

2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this application in the sum of £303.

7. REFERENCES

- ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB)

- Vehicle Control Services Limited v Carr (Ref. CA-2024-001179)

miffy_mulled_win

@Coupon-mad

Apologies for how late this is, but as I understand it, I need to email this in tomorrow. If you, or anyone else on the forum could peruse through my docs, I would be so, very appreciative! @henrik777 @LDast @Umkomaas

As a fellow Saffa, Umkomaas, I appeal to your Bok spirit!

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Your Draft order has a random 'SKELETON ARGUMENT OF DEFENDANT' heading in it!  Remove that. You also need your Draft Order to match what your N244 asked for, which includes an order that the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form within 14 days of the hearing after receipt of which the Defendant do file and serve a Defence within 14 days.

Also aren't you wanting your attendance costs as well as the £303 fee?  Add in hearing attendance costs including loss of salary or loss of leave.

The Skeleton Argument looks fine.

Not ripping any of that to shreds. Good work!