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

Coupon-mad

Looks good but add here the extra bit I've added between two sentences:

Further, the particulars of claim ('POC') are vague and generic: NB I was only emailed a copy of the (expired) POC by the CNBC on DATE/YEAR which, for the avoidance of doubt, is well outside the 4 months deadline and the actual Claim Form was never served. The POC do not specify...

freddiefluff

Hi @Coupon-mad, 

Thanks for your help. A court date has now been set for 13/01/26. 

In the meantime I have been sent this email from ParkingEye Enforcement Team:

We write in response to your application recently filed with the County Court Business Centre, dated 5th October 2025.

 

Parkingeye did not receive any response to 4 letters that were sent to the address held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. This was also the same address to which the County Court Claim Form was sent, to which you also failed to respond, resulting in a judgment in default being registered in favour of the Claimant.

 

As a direct result of any inaction, Parkingeye has since incurred significant further costs. However, as a gesture of goodwill, Parkingeye is willing to consent to the setting aside of the judgment in default given the submissions provided, predicated upon you making payment of Parkingeye’s costs of £232 within 14 days of receiving a sealed copy of the Court Order. 

 

Please find attached the proposed Tomlin Order. If you are agreeable to the terms of the same, we would kindly request that you sign and return this document via email, where it will then be filed with the County Court at Leeds. If you are not agreeable, Parkingeye will send a full response to your application prior to the scheduled hearing on 13th January 2026.

Can you please advise me @Coupon-mad ? Thanks in advance. 

Coupon-mad

Just checking a few things:

1. Did you get help with fees and paid nothing for your application?

2. Was anyone in the car disabled (irrelevant whether or not you had a blue badge). I am not asking that. I'm asking if you or a passenger have a long term condition or recurring infirmity or chronic illness affecting daily life, meaning you might need longer when shopping?

3. How long was the alleged overstay? Were you never told?

4. Please show us the Tomlin Order.

5. Please go back to page 1 of your thread and go through EVERY page and delete ALL your WS and Draft Orders except the one you used. I just tried to look back to understand where the unserved claim went (ex-marital home?) and you copied all sorts of irrelevant ones. Delete the wrong versions please!

Car1980

Parkingeye has since incurred significant further costs. However, as a gesture of goodwill, Parkingeye is willing to consent

😂

If applying for a default judgment would magically result in £232 costs, maybe they shouldn't have done it then.

Goodwill my !!!!!!. What a load of baloney.

freddiefluff

Thanks for the quick reply @Coupon-mad


1. Did you get help with fees and paid nothing for your application? - Yes this is correct. I have HWF.

2. Was anyone in the car disabled (irrelevant whether or not you had a blue badge). I am not asking that. I'm asking if you or a passenger have a long term condition or recurring infirmity or chronic illness affecting daily life, meaning you might need longer when shopping? Yes I have a long term chronic illness. I am not registered disabled. 

3. How long was the alleged overstay? Were you never told? I am not sure - never told. 

4. Please show us the Tomlin Order. Will do. 

5. Please go back to page 1 of your thread and go through EVERY page and delete ALL your WS and Draft Orders except the one you used. I just tried to look back to understand where the unserved claim went (ex-marital home?) and you copied all sorts of irrelevant ones. Delete the wrong versions please! Will do

freddiefluff

TOMLIN ORDER

_____________________

Upon the parties having agreed terms of settlement as outlined in the attached schedule, and;

The Claimant has been made aware that the defendant was not residing at the address that

correspondence was issued to and therefore had no opportunity to defend this claim in full, and

pursuant to CPR 13.3(1)(b)(i);

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Judgment entered against the Defendant on 17th September 2024 is hereby set aside.

2. All further proceedings in this matter be stayed except for the purpose of carrying out the terms

of the schedule attached to this order.

3. There be no order as to costs.

Schedule

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of £232 within 14 days of receiving the sealed

Court Order.

2. The sum referred to in paragraph 1 is paid and received in full and final settlement of all

matters brought under claim number L5FC6A5Y.

freddiefluff

I have tidyed the thread up. 

Yes Parking Eye were using my old marital address. I vacated August 2023.

Electoral Roll and Council Tax for new address was submitted Feb 2024. 

Here are the WS and Draft Order that I sent. 

WITNESS STATMENT 

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

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.

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.

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.

The Claim Form was issued on 20 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.

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.

Further, the particulars of claim (‘POC’) are vague and generic. NB I was only emailed a copy of the (expired) POC by the CNBC on 29 January 2025 upon my own request which, for the avoidance of doubt, is well outside the 4 months deadline and the actual Claim Form was never served. The POC 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.

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
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.

DRAFT ORDER 

UPON the Defendant’s application dated 5 October 2025 (the “Application”)  

AND UPON READING the Defendant’s witness statement dated 5 October 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 *Vehicle Control Services Ltd 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. No order as to costs.

Please let me if you need anything else. 

Thanks so much. 

Coupon-mad

Thanks, that's much clearer.

So I would reply to ParkingEye:


Dear Sirs,

I refer to your proposed Tomlin Order which has no value to me and is rejected.

It is disingenuous for ParkingEye to purport to say that my application has somehow caused you £232 in mysterious 'costs' when I gave you a fair chance to draw up a consent order when I first contacted you in March 2025.

ParkingEye was silent at that time and your unreasonable conduct in this litigation has continued to get worse:

- No evidence has been provided that a trace was conducted before claim form issue and you have breached the CPRs and the BPA code of practice in this matter;

- I am told by my ex-wife that mail addressed to me was returned to sender. This ought to have triggered further checks. You had 'reason to believe' I had moved well before the claim; 

- The fact remains that no valid service took place within the four-month period specified by CPR 7.5, therefore the claim has expired;

- The Claim must be struck out (as expired) but it was meritless anyway. I have a long-term health condition and often need more time to shop (explain why/your condition)

I won't be paying you a penny. I invite you - again - to issue a Consent Order that does not expect me to pay you. You have a week to do that. If not, I will attend my hearing.

Yours faithfully,

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks, that's much clearer.

So I would reply to ParkingEye:






- I am told by my ex-wife that mail addressed to me was returned to sender. This ought to have triggered further checks. You had 'reason to believe' I had moved well before the claim; 

It's very likely that the court claim and forms were also returned to sender.

Coupon-mad

Good point. The CNBC will know...