ParkingEye Default CCJ

miffy_mulled_win

Whoopsies, lack of sleep alert! Thank you for pointing that out.

I take it the 14-day addition to the Draft Order is this something like this:

DRAFT ORDER

Claim No:  XXXXXX

Between

Parking Eye Limited (Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXX (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 BY CONSENT THAT:-

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

2. The registration is cancelled;

3. Permission be granted for the Claimant to amend the Claim Form;

4. The Claimant to file and serve the amended Claim Form within 14 days of the sealed Order;

5. The Defendant to file and serve a response to the Claim Form within 14 days of receipt of the same;

6. Standard Small Claims direction to be given; and

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

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! (not for the judge, but for you, @Coupon-mad)

Coupon-mad

Yes but you may want to add 'and costs for attending the hearing'.

1505grandad

Some pedantic observations FWIW:-

(Typo)  -  "5. ARGUMENTS IN (FAVOR) OF SETTING ASIDE 

Also para 1.2  -  "...utility bills and V5C vehicle (license) being registered at the correct current address."

                1.3  -  ".... setting aside the (judgement)..."

miffy_mulled_win

Hi @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad,

At 12pm Yesterday, just 2 days before the hearing on Thursday, ParkingEye have submitted their own witness statement. Isn't this too late for them to submit a witness statement?

If either of you can help me with counter arguments to their statement, I would appreciate it greatly.

Essentially these are the points they are making that I will struggle to have a counter argument for in the hearing:

1.) Finally, we wish to confirm that we are seeking that no order be made as to costs. In this regard, we respectfully remind the Court of its duty to consider the Overriding Objective, as set out in Civil Procedure Rules. We wish to highlight CPR 1.1(2)(b), (c) & (f), which place a duty upon the Court to deal with claims in a proportionate manner, including as to costs, and to ensure compliance and enforcement of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.

2.) Parkingeye seeks an order that: 1. The application to set aside default judgment is dismissed; and 2. That the Claimants costs of attendance are awarded in the sum of £165

3.) The address used by the Claimant is the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and subsequently confirmed by a Credit Reference Agency following a trace being completed prior to legal action. 

4.) Given the above, it is Parkingeye’s position that setting aside the judgment would be disproportionate and that the Defendant could potentially incur further costs in taking this matter to a final hearing with little chance of success. Parkingeye also submit that the application has not been made promptly as required by CPR 13.3(2)

PROMPTNESS

Parkingeye submit that the application has not been made promptly and that the lateness of the application should be found to be fatal to the application pursuant to CPR 13.3(2). Parkingeye can confirm that Judgment was entered on 12/11/2024, but that the application was submitted to the court on the 08/01/2025.

In the case of Regency Rolls Ltd & Anor v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379, LJ Simon Brown stated; “I would accordingly construe “promptly” here to require, not that the applicant has been guilty of no needless delay whatsoever, but rather that he has acted with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances. That said, I too would regard the applicant here as having failed even in that obligation. 30 days was altogether too long a delay.”

The delay in bringing this application amounts to 8 weeks and Parkingeye submits that this application can in no way be considered to have been dealt with promptly. 

---

Some key facts to my case as a reminder:

I paid for and submitted my set aside hearing application 16 December 2024. Not sure where they are getting 8 Jan 2025 from?

I had to remove from my witness statement that my V5C was updated in July, I misread the date, I did the update in December 2024 after I learnt about the CCJ. This was changed before submitting my document bundle to the court.

I have evidence that TransUnion knew my new address already in June 2024, so I'm not sure what CRA trace they did that did not show my new address.

LDast

Politely but firmly inform the judge at the outset of the hearing that the claimant has filed their WS at an unreasonably late stage, providing insufficient time for the defendant to review and respond. Point out that Civil Procedure Rule 23.7(1) requires evidence in support of an application (including responses) to be filed and served as soon as practicable. Reference CPR 3.9 and CPR 1.1 (overriding objective), arguing that allowing a late WS would be unfair and against principles of natural justice, as the defendant has not had a fair opportunity to respond.

Ask the court to exercise its discretion to exclude the claimants late WS, citing CPR 32.10, which states that a party failing to serve a WS within the time ordered by the court may be prevented from relying on it. If no specific direction was given for WS filing, argue that standard practice requires parties to file at least three clear days before a hearing (as per CPR 23A PD 9.4), and the claimant's delay is prejudicial.

As the claimant is a known serial litigator known for procedural abuse, state that they failed to comply with litigation conduct standards, showing a disregard for fairness. Because the WS contains false or misleading information, argue that this further undermines the credibility of the claimant.

Because claimant has been mendacious or given false dates in their WS, highlight this in court and politely state that the misrepresentation further justifies disregarding the claimants WS. If possible, provide documentary proof (e.g., the actual date of the set-aside application from court records) to contradict their claim.

As the late WS has caused you inconvenience and/or additional preparation, seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) (unreasonable conduct). If the WS is excluded or the judge finds it misleading, argue that the claimant has abused the process and request costs for their unreasonable behaviour.

miffy_mulled_win

Thanks so much, @LDast

If the judge decides to allow the document, what other wholes, if any, could I poke in their WS? See below their full submission:







All this for overstaying by 14 minutes... Thanks again for everyone's help!

LDast

Point 2 in their WS says they were in receipt of "court directions". You should also have received a copy of that order. Without seeing it, you would have to check what deadlines were imposed and anything else in the order that they have failed to comply with.

Do, you have a copy of that order? If so, we'd need to see it.

miffy_mulled_win

The only "court directions" I received were included with my "Notice of Hearing" papers that were posted to be and I presume PEye. See the details below. On page two is where "Directions for Filing Trial Bundles" is. Are those the "court directions" PEye could be referring to in point 2? By their own admission, they have not adhered to providing their trial bundle 3 days before the hearing date. The hearing is 11:30am tomorrow (13 Feb) and their email has a timestamp of 12pm yesterday (11 Feb)



Full disclosure, I did not "seek to agree an indexed, paginated electronic trial bundle with the Claimant." I called a legal aid hotline and they advised me to simply send in my trial bundle and CC in the Claimant which I did last week Thursday, 7 days before the hearing.

I dropped my hard copy off at the court on Monday 10 Feb at about 13:30. 

miffy_mulled_win

One other thing. Because they mention the following, could this not prompt the judge to ask me for a draft defence or at least some points I would present for defence if the CCJ was set aside? I understand I don't want this to turn into a "mini-trial" that can't last for more than 30 minutes, but what do I say if the judge asks what my defence would be?

ParkingEye say this in their WS:

"Given the above, it is Parkingeye’s position that setting aside the judgment would be disproportionate and that the Defendant could potentially incur further costs in taking this matter to a final hearing with little chance of success."

I understand I'm opening with asking the judge to dismiss the late WS, but I would like some kind of leg to stand on if the judge allows it for some reason.

Coupon-mad

Why not just read the other CCJ hearing case this week where ParkingEye said they'd done a Trace but did not include it in evidence?

Might have been by @stop_this_nonsense