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

freddiefluff

Hi, 

Would anyone be able to help me with this please? I would be very grateful for your advice. Thanks so much. 

Coupon-mad

Good start. You need a bit more.

I can tell from the statement of truth that this was partly based on a five year old case because this is out of date:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Your reference to VCS v Carr is correct (you must have it!) but it needs to link instead to the 2025 final judgment transcript released by the court of Appeal two days ago.

You are missing the vital argument that the claim is EXPIRED and must be struck out (with your costs being granted) pursuant to VCS v Carr and other cases cited in the icy_fox example, linked in the NEWBIES thread.

You also need a Draft Order.

Again see the icy_fox thread that I refer to (and link to his posting profile to make the thread easy to find) in the Newbies thread second post about CCJ set asides.

And please show us the POC that the CNBC emailed you (hopefully) and was it a claim filed in-house by PEye, or was it by DCB Legal (don't make an assumption just because DCB Ltd contacted you. Technically, that's a different firm).

freddiefluff

The Notice of Debt Recovery came from DCBL, but the claim was filed in-house by ParkingEye Ltd (solicitor ID 7359), not by DCB Legal.

Below is the full text of the POC from the CNBC email:

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 [REDACTED] 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.”

Coupon-mad

Don't admit in para 3 to "not updating DVLA records" because judges get the wrong end of the stick about that.

On fact, Mr Carr in VCS v Carr also didn't but VCS were ordered to pay his costs by the Court of Appeal as the fact they used the wrong address was more their fault than his. You also have that same rationale 'there was reason to believe' that you did not reside at that address because your ex was sending the post back marked 'no longer at this address' and you were not responding.

That's 'reason to believe' you'd moved.

Have you watched the official video of VCS v Carr which is linked on several threads? You need to watch the hearing!

I bet this date isn't true. I bet you actually got and read that letter in the last week of Feb:

I first became aware of this claim on 17 February 2025 upon receiving a debt collection letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. 

You absolutely should not be talking about defending the PCN.

Your position is that the Claim HAS EXPIRED; authority: VCS v Carr (and a wealth of other authorities seen in icy_fox or Zbubuman's threads - take a look) so there is no claim and there is no power for the court to resurrect it.

The expired claim is as dead as a dodo and MUST be struck out for want of service within 4 months, as was the position in VCS v Carr, which is binding Court of Appeal 2025 case law.

So remove this sub-heading:

Real Prospect of Defence

Also remove all of this because February until June is not prompt and you do not need to prove 'promptness' in a case based on Carr (he took a year to work out what to do!). Promptness is NOT a valid consideration in an application relying on CPR 13.2: this is a mandatory set aside with the court having no power of discretion, so don't provide wriggle room:

Promptness

1. I acted promptly. As soon as I received the DCBL letter on 17 February 2025, I took steps to contact the court and request further information. This application has been made shortly thereafter.

Coupon-mad

Also don't delay your application any longer. Get it in and paid for on Monday.

Then - whilst on the phone to the fees section of the CNBC - after paying the fee, ask them to then put you through to someone who can see whether the CLAIM FORM was returned marked 'not at this address' and if it was, you want a copy of the letter that the CNBC sent to ParkingEye informing them that the Claim Form had been returned unserved.

We've seen one of those letters before and it would be gold dust for you, if this happened.

1505grandad

Also make sure any SoT is the latest version.

freddiefluff

Thank you so much! I am reading through it all now. I had been worried about the promptness issue, as I have been trying my best but have been finding it challenging. 

Coupon-mad

Be ready to correct the judge if they start talking about promptness. Point out that in the landmark case of VCS v Carr, Mr Carr took around a year to apply to set aside an improperly served CCJ.

Promptness isn't a valid consideration in an application relying on CPR 13.2.

Like VCS v Carr, this is a mandatory set aside with the court having no power of discretion: the CCJ MUST be set aside and the claim MUST also be struck out AND you must get all your costs too (pursuant to the CoA case).

Hence why the advice is DON'T mention that in your WS; don't provide wriggle room for the judge to even think about.

freddiefluff

Apologies for the delay in responding - I have been ill. 

I really appreciate all the feedback and here is my final version, based upon what you shared. 

Could you give me your thoughts before I submit? Thanks again @Coupon-mad

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR FULL NAME]

I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR CURRENT ADDRESS], will say as follows:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter, and I make this statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment dated 17 September 2024, pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was not the driver on the date of the alleged parking event.

2. I only became aware of the default judgment upon receiving a debt recovery letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd in late February 2025. I had no prior knowledge of any court proceedings or County Court Judgment.

3. The Claim Form was served to an address where I no longer resided. I moved to my current address in February 2024 due to personal circumstances, including a divorce. I updated my records with the council and the electoral roll. Post sent to my former address was being returned marked “not known at this address” by the current occupant, who confirmed this to me.

4. I did not receive a copy of the claim form, particulars of claim, or any pre-action correspondence. As such, I was denied any opportunity to defend the claim or respond.

5. The Claimant had reason to believe I was no longer at the service address, and they failed to take reasonable steps to verify my current address, contrary to CPR 6.9(3). No evidence has been provided that a trace was conducted before issue, and any mail returned undelivered ought to have triggered further checks.

6. The Claim Form was issued on 13 May 2024. As it was not validly served and no valid service took place within the four-month period specified by CPR 7.5, the claim has expired and is no longer valid.

7. This is confirmed by the binding authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 43, which held that where a claim has not been served within four months, and the Claimant had reason to believe the Defendant was no longer at the last known address, the court has no discretion: the judgment must be set aside and the claim struck out.

8. Further, the particulars of claim are vague and generic. They do not specify the conduct alleged to constitute a breach, nor do they identify how any contract was formed or breached. This is consistent with the “woefully inadequate” pleadings considered in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS Ltd v Akande, where similar claims were struck out.

9. I contacted the Claimant in March 2025 and invited them to consent to set aside the judgment. My letter went unanswered. I have since prepared and filed this application.

Conclusion

1. I respectfully submit that:

• The claim was not properly served in accordance with CPR 6.9;

• The claim has expired and must be struck out under CPR 7.5;

• The default judgment is void and must be set aside under CPR 13.2;

• The Claimant's pleadings are inadequately particularised and disclose no cause of action;

• The Claimant should pay the costs of this application due to their failure to take reasonable steps and unreasonable conduct.

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 a person if they make, or cause to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: ________________________
Dated: ________________________

---

DRAFT ORDER

UPON the Defendant’s application dated 1 June 2025 (the “Application”)
AND UPON READING the Defendant’s witness statement dated 1 June 2025 and the exhibits
AND UPON the Court noting that the Claim Form was not validly served in accordance with CPR 6.9 and CPR 7.5
AND UPON the Court having regard to the binding authority of VCS v Carr [2025] EWCA Civ 43

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The default judgment dated 17 September 2024 (the “Default Judgment”) is hereby set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

2. The claim is struck out as it was not validly served within the time permitted by CPR 7.5 and/or discloses no cause of action.

3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by this Application, to be assessed if not agreed.

freddiefluff

Bumping this up - @Coupon-mad or anyone else who can help. Thanks so much.