DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: July 21, 2025, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You're absolutely right to be weighing this carefully. A CCJ can
be a long-term stain on your credit file, and if it was entered
without proper service, you have strong grounds to challenge it.
Here’s how your situation stacks up legally and tactically:
• Proof of overseas residence and absence during service is key.
If you can show you were out of the country when the claim was
issued and served, and that you didn’t receive it, then the
judgment was wrongly entered under CPR 12.3. That triggers CPR
13.2 – the court must set it aside.
• V5C listing your UK address doesn’t override the fact that you
were not residing there at the time. CPR 6.9 requires claimants
to take reasonable steps to verify the defendant’s current
address. If they served to a UK address knowing or suspecting
you were abroad, that’s a procedural failure.
• No submission to jurisdiction: You didn’t respond, didn’t
appear, and weren’t present. That’s critical. The court has no
jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled abroad unless proper
steps under CPR 6.36–6.37 were followed – and they weren’t.
• Credit rating impact: A CCJ stays on your file for six years
unless it’s paid within one month or successfully set aside. If
you succeed in setting it aside, it will be removed (expunged)
from the public register and your credit file, usually within a
few weeks.
• Fee exemption: You mentioned you wouldn’t qualify for help
with fees. That means the N244 application will cost £313, but
if you succeed, you can seek to recover that from the claimant
under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
You’re not just defending a claim – you’re asserting that the
court had no authority to enter judgment against you. That’s a
jurisdictional strike, not a plea for leniency.
I still advise that you send the suggested response to
ParkingEye and see if they agree or not. Either way, it can
either cost them £123 or £313. Do not accept any offer from them
not to contest the set aside but you have to cover the cost.
This is their mess and they are the ones who should have to pay
for everything to be put right.
#Post#: 82079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: July 22, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b786.
I have taken note of all your key points and in particular your
mention of CPR 12.3. And I will certainly make use of the
example letter to send to Parkingeye. Much appreciated.
Just to clarify... On the basis I may be able to apply for set
aside - judgement being wrongly served. Am I understanding
correctly, from section CPR 12.3. 2(a) that conditions were not
met by the fact I was not able, (due to being at my overseas
address), and therefore did not acknowledge service? Which of
course I can prove.
Conditions to be satisfied by the claimant… CPR 12.3
“(2) Judgment in default of defence (or any document intended to
be a defence) may be obtained only—
(a) where an acknowledgement of service has been filed but, at
the date on which judgment is entered, a defence has not been
filed;”
Many thanks
#Post#: 82113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: July 22, 2025, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are understanding CPR 12.3 correctly. Under CPR
12.3(1), a claimant may obtain default judgment only if:
[indent]• The defendant has not filed an acknowledgment of
service or a defence, and
• The relevant time for doing so has expired.[/indent]
If you were out of the country and never received the claim,
then you couldn’t file an acknowledgment of service. That means
the conditions under CPR 12.3 weren’t met — because you were
never properly served, and the time limit never validly started.
This is exactly what CPR 13.2 is designed to address: if the
judgment was wrongly entered because the conditions for default
judgment weren’t satisfied, the court must set it aside.
So yes — if you can prove you were abroad and didn’t receive the
claim, you can argue that no valid acknowledgment of service was
possible, and therefore default judgment should not have been
entered in the first place.
#Post#: 85112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 11, 2025, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for your expert advice. Really appreciate it. I
sent the letter by post and email to ParkingEye inviting them to
consent to a set aside. They responded by informing me that I
had failed to adhere to parking regulations’ and again gave me
instructions on how I should pay my debt! There was a mention in
one sentence informing me that they would not accept an appeal
at this late stage. No mention about consenting or not to a set
aside! I then sent another email inviting them to submit a
Consent Order, highlighting my travel expenses if submitting the
N244. Flights and hotel accommodation needed to travel back to
the UK for the hearing from my residence abroad.
I'm putting together some details on my witness statement for
the N244 so show that I have a strong defence if I were allowed
to defend the claim. In your opinion, is the POC correctly
presented on the claim form? I did pay for parking and vacated
before the 2 hours expired. Also nothing on the signage showing
the 'Contract' that I apparently agreed to, by parking there.
Nor that the parking time-frame started and expired on entry &
exit by ANPR.
#Post#: 85135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 11, 2025, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You’ve already given ParkingEye the opportunity to agree to a
consensual set aside (which would have been cheaper and quicker
for everyone) and they ignored it, instead sending you a generic
“pay up” reply.
That now gives you a clear reason to proceed with a contested
N244 application for a set aside without consent. In your N244
witness statement, you can emphasise:
[indent]• You made a reasonable proposal to resolve the matter
by consent, with no costs to the court.
• ParkingEye ignored the CPR 1.1 overriding objective (“deal
with cases justly and at proportionate cost”) by refusing to
engage.
• Their refusal/ignoring of the invitation has caused
unnecessary cost (the higher £313 fee instead of £123), for
which you will seek recovery under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to
unreasonable conduct.[/indent]
That procedural history shows the court you’ve acted reasonably
and tried to avoid the cost and burden of a contested
application, and that any extra costs now fall squarely on them.
You can add something like this to your WS:
[quote]Attempts to Resolve by Consent
On [date], immediately upon learning of the default judgment, I
wrote to the Claimant both by post and email, inviting them to
resolve the matter by way of a consent order. I explained that
at the time of service I was resident overseas and had not been
served in accordance with CPR 6.9, rendering the judgment
wrongly entered under CPR 12.3 and falling within CPR 13.2. I
made it clear that a consented set aside would avoid unnecessary
cost to both parties and to the court, and that I was not
offering to contribute towards the application fee, as the
situation had arisen entirely from the Claimant’s procedural
failure.
On [date], the Claimant responded with a generic demand for
payment, repeating allegations of breach, and stating that they
would not accept an appeal at this stage. They made no mention
whatsoever of my invitation to resolve the matter by consent,
and provided no indication that they had considered the request.
On [date], I wrote to the Claimant again, repeating my
invitation to resolve the matter by consent and specifically
inviting them to submit a draft consent order. I highlighted
that, should I be forced to file an N244 without consent, I
would seek recovery of the £313 fee and my travel expenses to
attend any hearing, which will be substantial given my residence
overseas.
The Claimant again failed to address or respond to the
invitation to consent to a set aside.
This conduct is contrary to the overriding objective in CPR 1.1,
which requires parties to act proportionately, save expense, and
assist the court in dealing with cases justly. By refusing to
engage with a reasonable proposal to avoid the cost and burden
of a contested application, the Claimant has acted unreasonably.
I therefore ask the Court to:
[indent]1. Set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2
(mandatory, due to defective service), or alternatively under
CPR 13.3 (real prospect of successfully defending the claim and
prompt application).
2. Order the Claimant to pay my application fee of £313 pursuant
to CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis that their refusal to engage
with a reasonable proposal has caused unnecessary cost to both
the parties and the court.[/indent][/quote]
Have you created a draft order to go with your N244 application?
There could be a question from the judge about why you didn’t
tell ParkingEye about your overseas residence, but in the
context of a CPR 13.2 mandatory set aside it’s not fatal — and
here’s why:
[indent]• CPR 6.9 says service is valid if sent to the
defendant’s usual or last known residence.
• “Last known” isn’t just the last address on the V5C — the
claimant must take reasonable steps to verify the current
address if they have reason to believe the defendant no longer
resides there.
• As you had previously corresponded with ParkingEye entirely by
email and had given details suggesting you were abroad (or if
your postal responses stopped), ParkingEye arguably had enough
to prompt them to check the address before issuing
proceedings.[/indent]
The fact that you didn’t pro-actively notify them of an overseas
address might be raised, but:
[indent]1. It doesn’t change the fact you weren’t actually
served at a place you were living or could reasonably receive
proceedings.
2. It doesn’t absolve them from their CPR obligation to serve
correctly or to seek permission to serve out of
jurisdiction.[/indent]
On the problematic Particulars of Claim:
[indent]• This is a strong point for CPR 13.3 (discretionary)
even if the judge thought service was valid.
• If you can show documentary proof that payment was made for
the entire period you were parked (and you vacated before
expiry), the POC’s statement that “no payment was made” is not
just inaccurate — it’s potentially misleading under the
statement of truth rules.[/indent]
That gives you a real prospect of successfully defending the
claim if the judgment is set aside.
So, the combination is powerful:
[indent]• Mandatory set aside (13.2) – defective service while
resident overseas.
• Fallback discretionary set aside (13.3) – real prospect of
defending because the claim is based on an untrue statement
about non-payment.[/indent]
The PoC are actually helpful to your defence because they make
an absolute claim that you were “parking without paying to
park”. That is factually wrong if you can show you:
[indent]• Did pay for parking (receipt/app record).
• Left before the paid time expired.[/indent]
That’s not just a minor detail — it goes to the core of the
cause of action. If payment was made, their entire claim on
“failure to pay” collapses.
#Post#: 85155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 11, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, this is great information.
I have'nt yet created a draft order. Although I have, I think
worded my evidence in Section 10 of the N244 in the same way. I
think a Draft Order will be better. I will give it a go, as not
totally sure how to go about it. Can I let you see it to check?
(without personal details)
My postal responses stopped in August 2024. I left the UK in
October 2024 returned June 2025. The claim was posted to my
family address in March 2025. It is also now over 4 months since
being issued! Expired I think.
I paid for 2 hours and left before that 2 hours. I have the app
record. But was unaware my time had started on entry by the
ANPR. The car was therefore inside the carpark 14 minutes before
paying due to no phone coverage inside the carpark. They claim I
am 4 minutes outside the grace period. Although none of this is
mentioned in the POC.
I have since found online many others having parked in this same
carpark being sent PCNs for the very same situation. Due to no
phone coverage to enable use of the App to make payment on time.
#Post#: 85174--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 11, 2025, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my Draft Order.... I have used a few other examples on
here that appear similar to my situation...
-----------------
CLAIM No: xxx

BETWEEN:
xxx (Claimant)

-- and --
xxx
(Defendant)

______________________________________________

DRAFT ORDER

______________________________________________


UPON reading the Defendant's application dated xx xxx 2025 and
the annexed witness statement;
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 the
Defendant's usual residential address;
AND UPON more than 4 months having passed (CPR 7.5 refers) since
the issue of proceedings on 10 March 2025;
AND UPON the court finding that the Particulars of Claim fail to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)a by lacking a concise statement of facts
and therefore do not constitute a valid cause of action;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
to CPR 13.2 or CPR 13.3.
2.
since the issue of proceedings on 10 March 2025 without proper
service on the Defendant.
3.
cases of VCS vs Carr, Civil Enforcement v Chan.
4.
Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and do
not provide a concise statement of facts necessary to establish
a cause of action.
5.
indemnity basis. This is summarily assessed at £313 plus the
costs for attending the hearing.
6.
the application.
#Post#: 85205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: b789 Date: August 11, 2025, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The draft order is heading in the right direction, but I’d
tighten it up so it’s cleaner, avoids repetition, and uses
language a judge is used to seeing.
few key points to refine:
[indent]• Strike-out request – It’s fine to include this, but
judges sometimes prefer to deal with set-aside first and then
either strike out or give directions for a defence. Asking for
an immediate strike-out is bolder but worth keeping in if your
evidence is strong.
• Citations – “VCS v Carr” and “CEL v Chan” are persuasive, but
it’s better to refer to them in your witness statement and say
“having regard to” rather than putting them in the order itself.
• Costs wording – Use “CPR 27.14(2)(g)” for unreasonable conduct
rather than “indemnity basis” unless you’re ready to justify
indemnity in detail (which is harder to get on small claims).
• Enforcement stay – Good to keep in.[/indent]
Here’s a refined version:
[quote]DRAFT ORDER
UPON reading the Defendant’s application dated [xx xxx 2025] and
the annexed witness statement;
AND UPON the Court noting that the Claimant failed to effect
valid service of the claim form at the Defendant’s usual or last
known residence, the Defendant being resident overseas at the
time of purported service;
AND UPON more than four months having elapsed since the issue of
proceedings on 10 March 2025 without valid service, contrary to
CPR 7.5;
AND UPON the Court noting that the Particulars of Claim fail to
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to set out a concise
statement of facts capable of disclosing a cause of action;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
[indent]1. The default judgment dated 8 April 2025 is set aside
pursuant to CPR 13.2 and/or CPR 13.3.
2. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as
disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or
because the claim form has expired under CPR 7.5 without valid
service.
3. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of this
application, summarily assessed at £313 (court fee) plus the
Defendant’s reasonable costs of attending the hearing, pursuant
to CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct in
failing to engage with the Defendant’s proposal for a consent
order.
4. All enforcement of the judgment is stayed pending the outcome
of this application.[/indent][/quote]
This keeps all your key points but presents them in a way that’s
structured, judge-friendly, and avoids the risk of a judge
striking out your order as too argumentative for a draft order.
Feel free to show us an suitably redacted version of the WS.
#Post#: 85230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: RebeccaT Date: August 11, 2025, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great thank you, I will make some amendments. And upload a draft
copy of my WS soon.
Just to clarify, with mentioning, 'The claim is struck out
pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a). Which is relevant due to the written
wording in the POC. But they will argue and prove, together with
ANPR that my car was inside the carpark 14 minutes before making
the payment, therefore they are claiming I overstayed. To which
I have will defend by highlighting the exceptional circumstances
etc. Just want to be sure of things at this stage... So this is
about how they have presented the claim at this stage. Am I
right?
#Post#: 85254--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Eye & now Country Court Judgement. 4 minutes lat
e buying parking ticket!
By: ixxy Date: August 12, 2025, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What exceptional circumstances? The lack of phone signal and
mobility issues? Not really mitigating circumstances, the
signage clearly says you can pay up to midnight on the day of
parking so there was no time pressure to pay, there was plenty
of opportunity to pay after leaving at your leisure when you had
a phone signal. If it had been a pay on exit car park then there
may have been a valid defence using the disability act to show
the car park setup disadvantaged people with reduced mobility.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page