TWO CCJ's from Parrell Parking Limited - late application for set aside

asevabab

 Hi all,

I checked my credit report on the 2nd of February 2025 and was shocked to find that there were two CCJs issued against me, both dated 8th March 2022. These were from Parallel Parking Limited, and related to parking tickets. I hadn't received any correspondence from either Parallel Parking or Gladstones Solicitors (who were acting on their behalf).

I panicked and called Gladstones that same day (2nd Feb), only to find out that the CCJs had been served to my old address, which I moved out of in April 2019. They told me they’d done an Experian trace and had sent letters to my current address on the  27th July 2021—but I never received them.

I asked them to send the letters via email instead, which they did. The start of the letter stated:

“We wrote to you on 20 July 2021 at an alternate address. We have since carried out an Experian trace, which has produced a new address for you.”

They claimed that because I didn’t respond to that letter, they proceeded to serve the judgment at what they considered my "last known address"—which turned out to be the old one I hadn’t lived at for years.

It’s taken me a while to take action for a couple of reasons:

1. I genuinely didn’t know you could apply to have a CCJ set aside if you missed the 30-day deadline.

2. I have ADHD, which makes dealing with things like this really difficult. It’s taken a lot of support and encouragement from others to get to this point.

The CCJs are really impacting my life—they’re affecting my ability to get credit, which is also putting pressure on my relationship since we’re unable to apply for anything jointly right now.

I've spent the last few days reading through loads of posts on here (thank you to everyone who shares their experiences—it's been such a help). I've managed to put together a witness statement and a draft order, and I'm planning to send them off soon.

Would anyone be willing to have a look over them for me? I'd really appreciate a second pair of eyes (or as many as possible) to make sure I’m on the right track.

Also the  CCJs are from the same claimant (Parallel Parking Limited), and I’d really like to try to have them set aside together if possible—for financial reasons, as I’m struggling to cover the cost of two separate applications. Has anyone ever done this or heard of it being allowed by the court?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARALLEL PARKING LTD

Claimant

– and –

Defendant

XXXXXX

_________________________________

DRAFT ORDER
_________________________________

 

Upon reading the defendant’s application dated 7th April 2025

It is ordered that:

1. The judgment’s dated 8th March 2022 be set aside.

2. The Defendant shall file and serve its Defence by 4pm on 21st April 2025

3. The Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of N244 fee of £303 (and the Defendant's costs for attending a hearing - £95 for time in preparation; 5 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour).

4. The Claimant has permission to file and serve a reply if so required.

IN THE NORTHHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARALLEL PARKING LTD

Claimant

– and –

Defendant

XXXXXXX

_________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXX
_________________________________

 

I, XXXXX, XXXXXX being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;

 

1.     I make this Witness Statement in support of my application for an order that the judgments in this case (Claim No. XXXXXXXXXXX, judgments dated 08/03/2022) be set aside.

 

2.     CPR 13.3 states that the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if:

 

a.      the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or

b.     it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why:

                                               i.     the judgment should be set aside or varied; or

                                              ii.     the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

3.     I first became aware of these claims when I reviewed my credit file on 13/02/2025.

 

4.     I moved into my current address on 04/04/2019,

 

5.     Both the court orders and earlier correspondence regarding the parking fines were sent to my previous address XXXXX

 

6.     As a result, I did not receive any of the initial notices or court documents at the relevant time.

 

7.     After making inquiries by telephone, I discovered that Gladstone Solicitors who are acting on the behalf of the Claimant had used an Experian trace to locate my new address, confirming they had knowledge of my current address. Despite this, they failed to serve the judgments at the correct address.

 

8.     Despite having my new address, it appears the court orders continued to be sent to my old address, preventing me from being notified in time to respond, settle or dispute the fines/judgments.

 

9.     On 13/02/2025 I made a telephone request to the Gladstone Solicitors inviting them to consent to set aside the judgment.

 

10.   The Claimant turned down my request.

 

11.   I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside both judgments in this claim and allows 14 days for me to submit my defence.

 

12.   Due to the Claimant’s failure to properly serve the judgments—and considering the financial impact of needing to set aside two judgments separately—I respectfully ask the Court to consider both judgments together. If that is not possible, I kindly request time to raise the necessary funds to bring the second judgment at a later date.

 

13.   The Claimant's actions may be deemed unlawful under the principles set out in the case of Abela v. Kingston upon Hull City Council [2009] 1 WLR 1422, where the court found that failing to properly serve documents after having knowledge of a party's new address could constitute an abuse of process and render the judgment void. This case highlights that when the Claimant knew or should have known my current address, their failure to serve the documents at that address could be seen as a deliberate omission, impacting my ability to respond appropriately.

 

Statement of Truth

I, XXXX, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true.

 

Signed:

Dated:

 

Coupon-mad

You've copied a really old Draft Order and old WS ... so bin those.

And it's not in Northampton County Court it's the CNBC at the top. Look at newer ones such as by:

@icy_fox

Also the  CCJs are from the same claimant (Parallel Parking Limited), and I’d really like to try to have them set aside together if possible—for financial reasons, as I’m struggling to cover the cost of two separate applications. Has anyone ever done this or heard of it being allowed by the court?

No sorry and the fee per case is now £313. So it will cost you £626 up front now. Don't let that put you off. You want ALL your costs back and the claims both being struck out as well. It'll take a few months but we'll help you get there by the Summer.

sheenas

I have had a similar situation with a speeding fine and you can go to court and simply get the ccj’s revoked on the basis the address was wrong at the time of issue. You would need some proof of cause. Then the ball is back in their court.

asevabab

Hi @Coupon-mad and @sheenas,

Thank you both for your responses and suggestions—much appreciated. 

I've updated my witness statement and draft order using the examples provided by @icy_fox and @Zbubuman.

I'm still not entirely sure I've done it correctly, as I'm finding this whole process quite difficult to follow and understand.

Regarding Point 18:
It states that “Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings.” In my case, it had only been 10 months since the parking event when proceedings were issued. Does this mean I should remove this section, since the 12-month threshold hadn’t been reached?

Also, since a fair amount of time has passed, do I still have a good chance of getting these CCJs set aside?

The examples I’ve followed are for the second CCJ and include sections on Abuse of Process / Cause of Action Estoppel, which weren’t in the witness statement for the first CCJ. Am I right to include those sections in my current statement, or should they only apply in specific circumstances?

Just want to make sure I’m not overcomplicating things or including arguments that aren’t relevant to my case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case number: xxxxxxxxxxx  

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, [MY NAME], of [MY ADDRESS], will say as follows:

1.     I am the Defendant in this matter and I make this witness statement in support of my application to set aside the County Court Judgment (CCJ) entered against me on 08/03/2022. This judgment was entered in default due to a defective service of the claim.

2.     I was unaware of the claim made against me until I obtained a credit report from Equifax on 13/02/2025. It was at this point that I discovered the Claimant had obtained a default CCJ against me.

3.     The Claimant served the claim to an old address, which constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as the claim form was never served to my current address.

4.     The Claimant had a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the correct address was used, in accordance with IPC Code of Practice 22.1 and CPR 6.9. This is particularly relevant given the significant gap of over 10 months between the date of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 20/05/2021 and the CCJ on 08/03/2022.

5.     I did not receive any correspondence or notice regarding this matter until I became aware of the CCJ through my credit report, as stated in paragraph 2 above.

6.     While I am unsure of the exact date the claim was issued, it has now been more than four months since the CCJ was entered. During that time, I had no knowledge of the claim or the judgment. According to CPR 7.5, the claim should now be dismissed.

7.     I believe I have a strong defence to the claim. If the claim is not dismissed, I request the opportunity to defend it properly, as provided under CPR 13.3.

8.     The grounds for my application are set out in the attached draft order.

THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE THE CLAIM

9.     I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgment against me on 08/03/2022. I am aware that PARALLEL PARKING LTD is the Claimant, and the claim appears to relate to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.

10.  CPR 6.9 stipulates that an individual must be served at their "usual or last known residence." I have not received any correspondence regarding this matter other than limited information disclosed to me by the courts on 13/02/2025. I am therefore unaware of the specific dates on which the claim was issued. However, it is clear the Claimant used an outdated address obtained from the DVLA, failed to receive a response, and did not take the necessary steps to verify or locate my correct address.

11.  Had the Claimant exercised reasonable diligence, they would have been able to locate my correct address via multiple public records, such as those held by the DVLA, HMRC, Credit Reference Agencies. Despite the absence of any communication from me, the Claimant continued to send correspondence to the outdated address. This aligns with widespread concerns raised about practices within the private parking industry (relevant case law cited in paragraphs 25–32 below).

12.  The claim form was never served at my current address. I only became aware of the Default Judgment upon reviewing my credit file on 13 February 2025. This constitutes a breach of CPR 13.2(a), as I was denied the opportunity to file an Acknowledgment of Service or a defence, due to lack of notice.

13.  The address listed on the claim form is ADDRESS A. I moved from this address to my current residence at ADDRESS B in April 2019. I am able to provide proof of this address change, including a tenancy agreement [Exhibit A], council tax records [Exhibit B], and Credit Report with utility bill dates [Exhibit C].

14.  The lack of response to multiple letters (e.g. Notice to Keeper, reminder, Letter Before Claim) sent to my previous address should have alerted the Claimant that I no longer resided there. This silence was a clear sign that the address used was invalid.

15.  The Claimant failed to comply with CPR 6.9(3), as they did not exercise due diligence in ensuring the claim was served to an address where I actually resided. They had ample time and opportunity to establish a valid address, but instead proceeded incorrectly, resulting in an irregular and unjust judgment.

16.  This failure to take proper steps is not an isolated case. Many individuals across the country have been similarly affected by the parking industry's failure to confirm accurate addresses, resulting in undue stress and legal burdens.

THE INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMUNITY CODE WAS NOT FOLLOWED

17.  The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice 2019 (Version 7, November 2019) requires operators to conduct a soft trace when more than 12 months have passed between the parking event and the initiation of legal proceedings.

18.  Clause 22.1 of the IPC Code states:
"Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings."

DVLA ADDRESS DATA MAY NOT BE RELIABLE

19.  DVLA data is provided for a limited purpose: to enable parking operators to contact the registered keeper shortly after a parking event. It is not intended for litigation or legal service purposes.

20.  The KADOE (Keeper at Date of Event) system offers only a snapshot of where a vehicle was registered at a particular time, not a reliable service address for court claims.

21.  Operators are permitted to query the DVLA only once. Therefore, the IPC Code mandates that reasonable steps be taken to confirm the defendant’s current address prior to issuing a claim.

22.  The use of an outdated DVLA address, without soft trace checks (which are inexpensive and readily available), breaches the IPC Code of Practice, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, and CPR requirements to take reasonable steps to ensure proper service.

CONCLUSION

1. In light of the above, I was unable to defend the claim. I submit that the Default Judgment entered against me was issued incorrectly and must be set aside. I respectfully request that the Court consider ordering the Claimant to reimburse the £303 set-aside application fee and the Defendant's costs for attending a hearing - Due to my ADHD, I experience challenges with concentration and organisation, which significantly increase the time it takes me to complete administrative and legal tasks. I respectfully request that the Court consider a fair and reasonable amount of preparation time in line with CPR 46.5, estimated at 15 hours at the Litigant in Person rate of £19/hr, totalling £285.

CASE LAW IN SUPPORT

23.  A number of authorities address the failure to properly ascertain a defendant’s address before claim issuance. Notable examples include:

24.  Collier v Williams [2006] 1 WLR 1945 (CA), where LJ Dyson stated:
“What state of mind in the server is connoted by the words ‘last known’? … Knowledge in this context refers to the serving party's actual or constructive knowledge—i.e., what they could have acquired through reasonable diligence.”

25.  The Court stressed that defendants should not be burdened with unnecessary applications to set aside judgments when the claimant could have avoided such outcomes by taking proper steps.

26.  Similar principles were affirmed in:

27.  MB Garden Buildings Ltd v Mark Burton Construction Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 431 (IPEC)

28.  Broadside Colours And Chemicals Ltd, Re (No 2) [2012] EWHC 195 (Ch)

29.  In the Broadside case, it was acknowledged that while information from certain sources may be legally required to be kept up to date, reliance on outdated information alone is insufficient. Reasonable efforts must still be made to verify currency.

30.  In Dubai Financial Group LLC v National Private Air Transport Services Company (National Air Services) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 71, LJ McCombe stated:
“If a defendant has never become under a valid obligation to acknowledge service... he is simply not in default at all.”

CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

31.  The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

 

32.  A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit xx-02)

33.  Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit xx-03)

 

34.  Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit xx-04)

35.  Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit xx-05)

36.  The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

ABUSE OF PROCESS / CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL

37.  Being legally represented, the Claimant knows, or should know, that by detaching or allowing to remain detached, elements of alleged debts and issuing separate claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.

38.  The Claimant has issued two claims with identical Particulars with the exception of the Parking Charge issue date.

39.  Claim 1 xxxxxx – relates to PCNs issued on 06/05/2021.

40.  Claim 2 yyyyyy – relates to a PCN issued on the 20/05/2021, relying on the same facts.

 

41.  In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

42.  In Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
(i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

43.  Two claims were raised on behalf of the Claimant where one would have sufficed; which has doubled the waste to court time and also doubled the cost in setting aside the two CCJs.

44.  The Claimant filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the second claim under the grounds of cause of action estoppel. In the alternative, the Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

asevabab

RELEVANT CASE LAW

45.  Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784 is binding authority which establishes that courts cannot extend the time for service of a claim form beyond the strict time limit imposed by CPR 7.6, even under the general powers granted by CPR 3.10. In that case, the Court of Appeal refused to allow retrospective correction of service errors where the claim form had not been validly served within four months.

46.  CPR 12.3(1) provides that a claimant may obtain default judgment only if, at the time of entering judgment:
(a) the defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence; and
(b) the relevant time for doing so has expired.

47.  In this matter, the claim form was not validly served due to a failure to check for a current address (as required by CPR 6.9(3)). Consequently, the time for acknowledgment never began, meaning CPR 12.3(1)(b) was not satisfied. This entitles the Defendant to a mandatory set aside under CPR 13.2.

48.  In Dubai Financial Group LLC v National Private Air Transport Services Company Ltd (National Air Services) [2016] EWCA Civ 71, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that where no time for acknowledgment of service has started, a default judgment must be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2. The Court highlighted that where the claim form is not validly served, the defendant is not “in default,” and judgment cannot stand.

49.  The Court in Dubai Financial Group further confirmed that this outcome is not “playing technical games” but rather upholding due process. If the defendant is never under a valid obligation to acknowledge service, there is no lawful basis for entering default judgment.

THE CLAIM IS EXPIRED UNSERVED

50.  The Court reiterated that a default judgment obtained in the absence of valid service must be set aside as of right. The rules surrounding service are not optional; non-compliance extinguishes the court’s jurisdiction.

 

51.  Continuing an expired unserved claim more than 4 months after it was raised (but never properly served) is impossible under any rule of law or practice (CPR 7.5).

 

52.  The Claimant is wholly responsible for failing to serve the claim correctly within the 4 months (as required by CPR 7.5) and as a result this claim is expired unserved.

 

53.  The Claimant should not be given extra opportunities to waste the Court’s time after failing to follow pre-action protocols for debt claims, breaching the IPC code of practice and the CPRs about taking 'reasonable steps' (CPR 6.9) to check a Defendant's address.

 

54.  If the Claimant believes they still have a claim, then filing afresh is the only way forward. The Claimant may send a ‘Letter Before Claim’ to the right address, this time following the pre-action protocol for debt claims. The court is reminded that this Defendant has received nothing to build any defence on. No claim form and no detailed particulars of the claim have ever been sent to the Defendant’s current address.

 

55.  This claim should be struck out as more than 4 months have passed (CPR 7.5 refers) from issue of proceedings [date] and service of the claim was defective (i.e. it was never served).

 

56.  I acknowledge that I did not act as promptly as required in addressing this matter. However, due to my ADHD, I face challenges in managing administrative tasks without additional encouragement and reminders. This has contributed to the delay in my response. I respectfully request that this context be taken into account in the consideration of my case.

 

57.  Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £303 and the Defendant's costs for attending a hearing - £285 for time in preparation; 15 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour from the claimant should this request be successful.

Statement of truth:

58.  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:
Date:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLAIM No: XXX

BETWEEN:
PARALLEL PARKING LTD (Claimant)
-- and --
MY NAME (Defendant)
____________________________________________

DRAFT ORDER
____________________________________________

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

UPON considering the application of the Defendant to set aside the Judgment by default entered on 08/03/2022;

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 Defendant's usual residential address;

AND UPON more than 4 months having passed (CPR 7.5 refers) from issue of proceedings 08/07/2022;

IT IS ORDERED:

1.     The Judgment by default entered against the Defendant on 08/03/2022 is hereby set aside.

2.     The claim be struck out as more than 4 months has passed from issue of proceedings 08/07/2022

3.     Costs of the application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant in the sum of £303 (and the Defendant's costs for attending a hearing - £285 for time in preparation; 15 hours as litigant in person at a rate of £19 per hour).

 

Coupon-mad

Change £303 to £313 as it's gone up, like I said ... sadly just days ago!

Regarding Point 18:
It states that “Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings.” In my case, it had only been 10 months since the parking event when proceedings were issued. Does this mean I should remove this section, since the 12-month threshold hadn’t been reached?

YES - I AGREE - REMOVE IT.

Also, since a fair amount of time has passed, do I still have a good chance of getting these CCJs set aside?

YES - BUT YOU NEED TO ADD THE VCS V CARR OFFICIAL COURT OF APPEAL VIDEO FROM 4th MARCH. SEARCH THE FORUM.

The examples I’ve followed are for the second CCJ and include sections on Abuse of Process / Cause of Action Estoppel, which weren’t in the witness statement for the first CCJ. Am I right to include those sections in my current statement, or should they only apply in specific circumstances?

SEEMS RIGHT TO INCLUDE THAT, IF BOTH CLAIMS WERE FROM THE SAME CLAIMANT, RE SAME CAR, LOCATION & ESSENTIALLY DUPLICATE FACTS IN ALL BUT PCN DATES

asevabab

Hi @Coupon-mad

Apologies I initially thought it was a typo. I’ll update the documents to reflect the new payment and remove point 18 as suggested.

I’ll also review the VCS v. CARR (Court of Appeal, 4th March) video on the forum and incorporate any relevant points into the witness statement.

I’ve sent the following email to Gladstones and have received a response, which I’ll post below. I’d really appreciate any advice on how best to respond.

Thanks again for all the support!

--------------------------------------------------------

This is an invitation to your client, PARALLEL PARKING LTD, to jointly apply to the court to set aside two County Court Judgments (CCJs) in respect of claims (claim 1) and (claim 2).

On 13 February 2025, following a recent credit check, I was shocked to discover two CCJs issued on 08 March 2022. I had never received any communication or correspondence from your client or any representative regarding these claims.

Upon contacting the County Court Business Centre (CCBC), I learned the following:

1. The claims relate to alleged parking events on 06/05/2021 and 20/05/2021 on Talbot Street.
2. The claim forms were issued to an old address where I no longer resided.
3. Had I been given the opportunity, I would have fully defended the claims.

I received no pre-claim letters, claim forms, or particulars of claim—meaning I was wholly deprived of my legal right to respond or defend myself. Your client should have taken reasonable steps to ensure my address was current, especially as no acknowledgment of service or defence was received from the address used.

Furthermore, two separate claims were issued for what could reasonably have been dealt with under one claim. This not only duplicates the burden on the court system (contrary to Henderson v Henderson) but also doubles the costs involved in addressing these CCJs.

It’s also worth noting that the two separate claims were issued on behalf of the Claimant when a single claim would have sufficed, as established in Henderson v Henderson. This has needlessly doubled the burden on the Court’s time and resources, and has in turn doubled the costs associated with setting aside both judgments. 

In addition, the Claimant either deliberately or negligently used an outdated address, despite clear obligations to verify my current residence. Furthermore, they appear to have applied an inflated and wholly disallowed interest rate of 10.25%. This conduct is wholly unreasonable and exposes your client to full costs liability in both cases—an estimated £600–£700—which they are now invited to avoid. 

As you will be aware, the Civil Procedure Rules state in CPR 6.9(3):

“Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant is an address at which the defendant no longer resides, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence.”

Your client is also a member of the International Parking Community (IPC) and bound by its Code of Practice, which echoes this duty in Clause 22.1:

“Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist's details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings.”

Had your client followed the above requirements, my current address would have been easily found and I would have had the chance to engage with the claim from the outset.

Due to this failure, the claims were not properly served, and the judgments must be set aside at the Claimant’s cost. Given the time that has now passed, and the procedural failures, these claims should be struck out entirely.

I therefore invite your client to join me in making a joint application to set aside the CCJs and dismiss the claims, with the Claimant bearing the court fees and each party covering their own costs.

Please confirm whether your client agrees to this proposal. To allow time for discussion and preparation of the necessary documents, I will delay making a unilateral application until 4 PM on 22 April 2025. After this time, I will instruct a solicitor to proceed with individual applications to the Court seeking to:

• Set aside the judgments
• Strike out the particulars of claim
• Dismiss the claims
• Seek costs against your client on an indemnity basis

If your client declines this more economical and reasonable resolution, please be advised that two separate applications will be submitted by the end of April and your client will be liable for the full associated costs.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours faithfully,

Miss xxxxxxxxxxx

asevabab

This is Gladstones response: Whilst we note your comments, at this stage we will not consent to the Judgment being set aside.Our Client has followed the correct process and your address came from the DVLA. If this was incorrect at the time the charges were incurred, then it is your obligation to ensure your details are correct and kept up to date. Our Client cannot be held prejudiced for this.In the event you provide full evidence that you were not at the address when proceedings were issued, and proceed to make an application to Court, our Client may not seek to oppose the application on the basis full payment of the Judgment is made prior to this taking place. In the event you do not wish to make payment, our Client shall oppose the application on the above basis.

Please be advised that the case is with Enforcement Company Empira. Their offices can be contacted by calling 01925984020 or sending an email to enquiries@empira.co.uk. Settling the outstanding debt will need to be made directly with them. 

Castle

ieshagayle25 said:

 Hi all,

I checked my credit report on the 2nd of February 2025 and was shocked to find that there were two CCJs issued against me, both dated 8th March 2022. These were from Parallel Parking Limited, and related to parking tickets. I hadn't received any correspondence from either Parallel Parking or Gladstones Solicitors (who were acting on their behalf).

I panicked and called Gladstones that same day (2nd Feb), only to find out that the CCJs had been served to my old address, which I moved out of in April 2019. They told me they’d done an Experian trace and had sent letters to my current address on the  27th July 2021—but I never received them.

I asked them to send the letters via email instead, which they did. The start of the letter stated:

“We wrote to you on 20 July 2021 at an alternate address. We have since carried out an Experian trace, which has produced a new address for you.”

They claimed that because I didn’t respond to that letter, they proceeded to serve the judgment at what they considered my "last known address"—which turned out to be the old one I hadn’t lived at for years.

 

OP

Have you contacted Experian to confirm this? (Because, why do a trace less than 7 days after sending the first letter unless the first letter was returned to sender!)

asevabab

@Castle Thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t even noticed. What’s the best way to contact Experian—should I email them or give them a call? Also, would Gladstone’s name appear on a soft trace? or should I be looking for something else.

ChirpyChicken

The use a firm called UK search to do the tracing i believe 
https://www.uksearchlimited.com/