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

freddiefluff

I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR CURRENT ADDRESS], being the Defendant in this matter, will state as follows:

1. I make this Witness Statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment dated 17 September 2024, under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

2. I only became aware of this County Court Judgment (CCJ) after receiving a debt collection letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd dated 17 February 2025. This was the first notice I received in relation to this claim.

3. I submit that the default judgment was improperly entered due to defective service. The Claimant served the claim at my old address, despite having access to systems and obligations under CPR 6.9(3) and the BPA Code of Practice to check for an updated address.

4. I moved to my current address in February 2024 due to personal circumstances including a divorce. While I updated my details on the electoral roll and with my local council, my V5C was not yet updated at the time the claim was issued. I was unaware this would impact legal correspondence.

5. The current resident of my previous address has confirmed she returned post addressed to me marked “Not known at this address.” I believe this would have included any correspondence from the Claimant.

6. The Claimant had a responsibility to check my current address, especially in light of returned post. There is no evidence they undertook a soft trace or any other steps to confirm my residence before issuing the claim. Service was therefore not valid under CPR 6.9, and the default judgment must be set aside under CPR 13.2.

7. I wrote to ParkingEye Ltd on 18 March 2025, inviting them to consent to a set-aside based on improper service. I gave them two weeks to reply, but received no response. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit SH1.

8. I do not admit to any breach. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time. I did not receive a Parking Charge Notice and have no knowledge of any contravention occurring on 16 May 2024.

9. The site in question is a free car park with time restrictions. It’s possible the vehicle exited and later re-entered - a known ANPR flaw - or that there was a genuine error. I dispute that any valid charge is owed.

10. The signage at the site may not have complied with the standards required to form a contract. I also dispute that the terms were adequately communicated to the driver.

11. In the alternative, I rely on CPR 13.3(1)(b), as there is good reason to set aside this judgment: I was unaware of the proceedings and have acted promptly upon learning of the CCJ.

12. I respectfully submit that:

• The Claimant failed to serve the claim to my correct address;

• I have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim;

• I acted promptly upon discovering the judgment;

• It is in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

Relief Sought

1. I respectfully request that the Court:

• Set aside the default judgment;

• Strike out the claim (if appropriate);

• Grant me 14 days to file a full defence;

• Invite the Court to consider the Claimant’s conduct in failing to check my address before issuing proceedings, as unreasonable.

---

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signed: _______________________
Dated: ________________________

freddiefluff

SKELETON ARGUMENT

1. Overview

This Skeleton Argument supports the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment entered on 17 September 2024, under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.

2. Key Points

2.1. Improper Service (CPR 13.2)

• The claim was sent to a previous address.

• Post sent there was returned marked “Not known at this address”.

• Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to verify a current address, breaching CPR 6.9(3) and BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 24.1c).

• Therefore, service was defective and the judgment must be set aside under CPR 13.2.

2.2. Prompt Application (CPR 13.3(2))

• The Defendant first learned of the judgment on 17 February 2025 via a DCBL letter.

• The application to set aside was made promptly thereafter.

2.3. Real Prospect of Defence (CPR 13.3(1)(a))

• Defendant is not liable as the keeper, not the driver.

• No PCN was received, no contractual breach accepted.

• The site is a free car park with time limits. ANPR error (double entry) is a known issue.

• Signage may have been unclear or inadequate.

• Therefore, a defence has real prospects of success.

2.4. Case Law

• VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179) – reinforces that improper service, especially where the defendant has a strong defence, justifies a set-aside.

• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Luton CC, 2023) – claim struck out for vague particulars.

• CPMS Ltd v Akande (Manchester CC, 2024) – claim struck out where particulars failed to explain the alleged breach.

---

3. Relief Sought

The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to:

• Set aside the default judgment;

• Grant permission to file a defence within 14 days;

• Strike out the claim if deemed suitable;

• Award costs of this application to the Defendant due to the Claimant’s failure to serve correctly and conduct a proper trace.

---

Signed: __________________________
Dated: ___________________________

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

Here’s my updated Draft Order following the latest feedback, particularly about VCS v Carr, expired claim arguments, and format.  I would appreciate your thoughts @Coupon-mad whilst I work on the WS and Skeleton, based upon your feedback. 

UPON the Defendant's application dated XX June 2025 (the "Application")

AND UPON READING the Defendant’s witness statement dated XX June 2025 and the exhibits

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

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

2. The claim is struck out on the grounds that it was not validly served within the period specified by CPR 7.5(1), and/or is without merit.

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

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.”

freddiefluff

Updated WS and Skeleton based upon your feedback. Thanks in advance. 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [REDACTED]

I, [REDACTED], of [REDACTED], will say as follows:

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. This statement is made in support of my application to set aside the Default Judgment entered on 17 September 2024.

2. I apply under CPR 13.2, on the basis that the claim was never validly served. In the alternative, I rely on CPR 13.3(1)(a) and/or (b), and respectfully ask the Court to set aside the Default Judgment.

Background

1. I first became aware of this claim on 17 February 2025 upon receiving a debt collection letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. This was the first time I became aware that a County Court Judgment had been entered in my name.

2. I understand the Default Judgment was issued following an alleged parking contravention on 16 May 2024. I had not received any PCN, Letter Before Claim, Claim Form, or correspondence from the Claimant prior to this DCBL letter.

3. The claim form was issued to my previous address. I moved to my current address in February 2024 following a divorce and updated my electoral roll and council tax records. I had not yet updated my DVLA details at that time.

4. I am in contact with the current resident at my former address. She confirmed that post addressed to me had been returned to sender marked "not known at this address." This includes, I believe, correspondence from the Claimant. The Claimant should have taken reasonable steps to check my address before issuing proceedings, as required by CPR 6.9(3) and BPA Code of Practice para 24.1(c).

5. On 18 March 2025, I wrote to ParkingEye requesting consent to a set-aside on grounds of improper service. I gave them 14 days to respond but received no reply. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit SH1.

Real Prospect of Defence

1. I do not admit to the alleged breach. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I did not receive any PCN nor recall overstaying. The car park in question is a free car park with a maximum stay period.

2. It is possible the vehicle entered and exited the site twice on the same day — a known issue with ANPR systems. There may have been a genuine error. I also question whether the signage was sufficiently prominent or clear to form a binding contract.

3. The claim’s Particulars of Claim are vague and non-compliant with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5. This was highlighted in CEL v Chan (Luton County Court, August 2023), where an almost identical POC was struck out.

4. The claim is also now expired and unserved, and must be struck out under CPR 7.5(1) and VCS v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025). In that case, the Court held that claimants must ensure service is valid within the 4-month period. Serving at an outdated address without diligent checks renders service ineffective.

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.

Conclusion

1. For the reasons above, I respectfully request the Court:

• To set aside the Default Judgment under CPR 13.2 and/or 13.3;

• To strike out the claim as unserved and expired;

• To allow me 14 days to file a defence; and

• To consider a costs order in my favour due to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in failing to take steps to verify my address.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed: ____________________
Dated: ____________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT 

Case number: [REDACTED]
Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd
Defendant: [REDACTED]

1. Summary

This Skeleton Argument supports the Defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment dated 17 September 2024 under CPR 13.2 and/or 13.3.

2. Improper Service - CPR 13.2

• The Defendant was not served at their usual or last known address, as required by CPR 6.9(3).

• The Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the Defendant's address, despite having reason to suspect it was outdated (returned mail).

• This constitutes a breach of CPR and the BPA Code of Practice para 24.1(c).

• Under VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179), the Court of Appeal confirmed that improper service renders a default judgment void and unserved claims may not proceed beyond four months (CPR 7.5(1)).

3. Discretionary Grounds - CPR 13.3

• The Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

• The signage may have been unclear or inadequate to form a contract.

• The Defendant does not admit the breach and has provided reasonable explanations regarding potential ANPR error or double entry.

• No PCN was received, and no evidence has been produced that a contract was entered into.

• The Defendant acted promptly once made aware of the CCJ.

4. Inadequate Particulars of Claim

• The POC are vague and fail to specify the conduct constituting the breach.

• This fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paras 7.3-7.5.

• This exact issue led to strike-out in CEL v Chan and CPMS Ltd v Akande.

• The claim is liable to be struck out on this basis alone.

5. Relief from Sanctions - CPR 3.9 Principles

• The Defendant did not cause the default judgment.

• The breach (non-filing) was not serious or significant in context, as the claim was never served.

• The Defendant has acted promptly and reasonably.

6. Costs

• The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to award their reasonable costs of this application, due to the Claimant's unreasonable conduct in failing to verify the correct address before issuing proceedings.

7. Conclusion

The Defendant asks the Court to:

• Set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3;

• Strike out the claim;

• Award the Defendant’s costs of the application.

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.