CCJ from Parking Eye - help to get it set aside and contest charge

freddiefluff

Hi all, 

I have read through the threads and would love some support with my next steps. 

I have already written to Parking Eye solicitors to ask them to join me in an application to set aside, following the format in a previous thread, but had no response. 

I am now preparing the N244 form and would appreciate any advice. 

The speed at which I have been able to follow the guidelines has not been very quick, due to ill health, but I am absolutely focussed on getting this next step done asap. I know this is important. 

Here is the timeline: 

Feb 2024 moved house.
Updated on the electoral roll and council tax. 
Did not update VC5 or driving licence as was not aware I needed to and in the midst of a divorce. 
Feb 2025 received a debt collection letter from DCBL. 
Contacted CNBC to find out the details as this was the first I had heard about it. 
March 2025 sent letter to Parking Eye Ltd solicitors as above. 
No response so now preparing N244. 

Is this ok for the DRAFT ORDER? 

Notes - do I need to fill in the XX's? I get help with my fees so I won't have to pay anything, so do I need to amend point 6? 

Thank you in advance. 

DRAFT ORDER

_________________________________

Upon reading the Defendant's application dated XXX and the annexed witness statement of XXXXXX dated XXX

It is ordered that:

1. The default judgment dated 17th of September 2024 be set aside.

2. Costs to be reserved.

3. Unless the Claimant serves a copy of the Claim Form on the Defendant by 4pm on XXXXXX the claim will be struck out without further order.

4. If the Claimant serves the claim form as directed in paragraph 3 the Defendant shall file and serve a defence by 4pm XXXXXX.

5. All enforcement be put on hold pending the outcome of the application.

6. Should the court reserve costs in the case as an alternative to paragraph 2, such costs of this application will become payable if the claimant discontinues it's claim.

Coupon-mad

Was the claim from DCB Legal solicitors or from ParkingEye issued 'in-house'?

Have you got the Particulars of Claim? Show us those.

No you don't send that. Read a more recent example: e.g. the thread by @Truss_me

freddiefluff

Yes it was a Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL. Shall I upload a picture? 

Ah ok, thanks. I'll take a look now at the more recent thread. 

Thank you for your help 

Coupon-mad

freddiefluff said:

Yes it was a Notice of Debt Recovery from DCBL. Shall I upload a picture? 

Nope, because that's not the same exact company I was asking about.

I was asking which legal firm filed the claim. DCBL is not the same Ltd company as 'DCB Legal' (who I can see were not involved in your case).

It was ParkingEye in-house.

freddiefluff

The Notice of Debt recovery was DCBL. The claimant solicitors are ParkingEye Limited (7359). 

I had to get my previous comment deleted by admin, so apologies for the delay, but here are the particulars: 

POC = CLAIM FOR MONIES OUTSTANDING FROM THE        DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO A PARKING CHARGE    (REFERENCE 197626/151837) ISSUED ON          20/05/2024. THE SIGNAGE CLEARLY DISPLAYED    THROUGHOUT BOOTHS STATES THAT THIS IS PRIVATE LAND,   MANAGED BY PARKINGEYE LTD, AND THAT IT IS    SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A MAX STAY PERIOD, BY WHICH THOSE WHO PARK     AGREE TO BE BOUND (THE CONTRACT).            PARKINGEYE'S ANPR SYSTEM CAPTURED VEHICLE    XXXXXXX ENTERING AND LEAVING THE SITE ON     16/05/2024, AND OVERSTAYING THE MAX STAY     PERIOD. PURSUANT TO SCH 4 OF THE PROTECTION  OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012, NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN  TO THE REGISTERED KEEPER, MAKING THEM LIABLE FOR THE PARKING CHARGE PAYABLE UPON BREACH.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

freddiefluff

Thanks for your time - I appreciate it! 

Coupon-mad

OK.

Read the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread and a recent worked example: e.g. the thread by @Truss_me

Coupon-mad

freddiefluff said:

Thanks. That is the thread and post (2nd) I have been following. I have now found the @Truss_me one you referred to too.

So this is the draft order template that you suggest? 

UPON the Defendant's application dated [                ] November 2024 (the "Application")

AND UPON READING the witness statement of XXXX dated [                ] November 2024

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1                 The default judgment entered against the Defendant dated 12 July 2024 (the "Default Judgment") be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 [CPR 13.3(1)];

2                 The claim (no. XXXX) ("Claim") is dismissed.

3                 No order as to costs in respect of the Claim.

4                 The Claimant/Respondent shall pay the Defendant's/Applicant's costs of and occasioned by the Application. 

 

3 and 4 make no sense as 'no costs' isn't right. Remove 3.  And obviously no copying the 2024 dates shown there.

Other recent CCJ WS examples are in threads by 

@icy_fox

and

@Lia_F

Le_Kirk

Is it really dated 12 July 2024?  Judges like to see prompt action taken!

freddiefluff

No - this is an example I have copied from another thread. Mine was later but I only found out about it in Feb this year. I have been working through the steps in between health issues. 

freddiefluff

And then a draft Defense as well, so I can hopefully get ahead with what might be needed. 

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies that they are liable to the Claimant in the terms alleged, or at all.

2. The Defendant denies that any contract was formed. The signage at the location is denied to have been sufficiently prominent, clear, or legible to form a binding agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof that:

• The signage complied with the BPA Code of Practice;

• The terms were clearly communicated;

• The Defendant agreed to those terms by conduct.

3. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of CPR 16.4 or Practice Direction 16, paras 7.3–7.5. They are vague and provide no basis for understanding what the alleged terms were, how they were breached, or how the amount claimed has been calculated. This fails to establish a clear cause of action.

4. The Defendant has no recollection of overstaying on the alleged date. It is possible that the vehicle entered the site more than once, which may have caused a false reading by the Claimant's ANPR system. This issue is known to occur and has been reported in similar claims. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a single, continuous stay, and is requested to provide full ANPR logs for that day.

5. The Defendant denies that a parking charge notice was ever received and was unaware of any alleged contravention until a debt recovery letter was received many months later. This deprived the Defendant of any opportunity to appeal or respond.

6. The Defendant further denies that they were properly served with the claim form. The Defendant had moved house before the claim was issued and had not updated the V5C logbook at the time, due to personal and mitigating circumstances. The Defendant is in contact with the current occupant of the former address, who has confirmed that post addressed to the Defendant was returned marked "Not known at this address". The Claimant therefore had reason to believe the address was no longer valid and failed in their duty under CPR 6.9(3) to take reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant's current address.

7. As a result, the Defendant did not receive the claim form and was unaware of the proceedings. The default judgment was therefore wrongly entered and should be set aside under CPR 13.2. In the alternative, the Defendant relies on CPR 13.3, having acted promptly upon learning of the judgment and having a real prospect of defending the claim.

8. The Claimant appears to have claimed a total sum of £302, which is significantly higher than the typical £100 charge associated with parking charge notices. The Defendant does not know the precise breakdown of this amount, as the original PCN and detailed particulars of claim were never received.

9. If the Claimant has added an extra £60 in so-called “debt recovery” or administrative charges, the Defendant submits this is an attempt at double recovery. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 4(5), the maximum sum recoverable from the registered keeper is the amount stated in the Notice to Keeper.

10. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out any sum above the original PCN amount unless the Claimant can justify it with proper evidence.

11. The Defendant also notes that the Claimant failed to engage when contacted prior to this application. On learning of the default judgment, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's solicitors inviting a joint application to set aside the judgment. No response was received, and the Defendant had no option but to file this application unilaterally.

12. The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be struck out, or that the judgment be set aside and the Defendant given leave to file a full defence.

---

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth.

Signed:
Dated: