Parking Eye Ltd - Removing a CCJ

Parking Eye Ltd - Removing a CCJ

Author
Discussion

fellatthefirst

Original Poster:

579 posts

154 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
So i went on my credit report the other day and to my horror noticed that i had a CCJ!! Issued by Northampton County Court...

I looked into it and it's from Parking Eye ltd who are a parking company that patrol the carpark where my gym is. You are allowed to park in the car park for 2 hours (if you are in the shops) or longer if you are using the gym and on that particular day i was in the gym more than 2 hours.

Anyway...

I knew nothing of any parking fine or judgement. I have received no paperwork what so ever. This is the first i know of it. I have moved house so i'm guessing the paperwork went to the old address although the CCJ was issued in December last year and i had been at my new address since Feb of that year so really i don't understand how i got no paperwork at all along the process?

I want to deal with this:

A) Fight the charge that they are imposing because i was using the gym
B) Get the CCJ removed from my credit score because before that my score was 999 so now i've got the hump!


Can anyone point me in the right direction of what to do or any experience of doing this before?

Thanks

Truffles

577 posts

183 months

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
You need to apply to the court to have the original judgment set aside. There are tight rules on this which mean you will need to apply promptly following the moment you found out (waiting a month or so is too long). Do a search on 'Civil Procedure Rules Part 13'. Once you've done this the CCJ should be removed from your record and the case is reset.

Then you can either defend the claim or pay it (which might be the most stress free option), assuming Parking Eye decided to go to trial again.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

GreenDog

2,261 posts

191 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
Surely you should contact Parking Eye and explain the circumstances in the first instance. Only if you cannot resolve the issue with them directly should you pursue the legal route.

red_slr

17,122 posts

188 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
He already has the CCJ. They already found against him in court - he needs to go straight to the court - who in turn will write to the claimant to advise its been set aside.

fellatthefirst

Original Poster:

579 posts

154 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
Thanks everyone...i will go about contacting the court to get this set aside.

I did call parking eye but their phone system is fully automated and it just asks for a case number of which i don't have because i don't have any paperwork!

I wrote to them 3 weeks ago to explain this and have heard nothing back...not heard good things about them on a quick Google search either.

clonmult

10,529 posts

208 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
I get regular emails from Experian on my credit report (thankfully always coming back clear), was considering cancelling it to save a few quid a month. Hearing this, I think I'll keep it going ....

P-Jay

10,551 posts

190 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
Ouch, how you deal with it will depend how quickly you might need to use credit in the future.

The major problem is the CCJ, the court themselves will have written to you (via recorded mail usually) to let you know that a hearing was going to take place.

The quickest way to resolve this would be to contact the court, take them you were completely unaware of the hearing until now - if they accept this they'll allow you 30 days to pay parking eye and they'll set it aside - within a few weeks it'll be like it never happened.

The longer was would be to contact Parking Eye, argue your case, get them to accept you parked within the rules and then go to the court to have it set aside, but even if you do get Parking Eye to accept you aren't liable to the fee (it's not a fine) then you still have to convince the court you simply didn't ignore the problem.

Frankly I'm surprised they took you to court, these parking parasites usually don't bother - their model relies on a few people paying because of their scary letters, perhaps they've upped their game.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
This is likely a judgement by default so there will not have been a hearing, and the Court doesn't post you the claim by recorded delivery.

OP, Parking Eye will have used the address they will have obtained from DVLA so if that was not up to date it explains why you didn't receive the claim particulars.

As has been stated, you need to request the court sets aside the judgement as you were not served and you intend to defend on the grounds you have outlined. Then follow their process.

retrorider

1,339 posts

200 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
Look up Northampton bulking centre.Should shed some light on the subject for you.

un1corn

2,143 posts

136 months

Friday 5th December 2014
quotequote all
Wait, wasn't the advice always to just throw parking eye tickets in the bin and ignore everything? This is hat the OP has done and got himself a CCJ.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Saturday 6th December 2014
quotequote all
hora said:
un1corn said:
Wait, wasn't the advice always to just throw parking eye tickets in the bin and ignore everything? This is hat the OP has done and got himself a CCJ.
I was reading/thinking this. Feck a CCJ/ignore now.
Binning has not been an option since PoFA 2012. The appeal/PPC rejection/POPLA appeal is the standard method now and advice to that effect has been out there for some time for those who can be bothered to look.

PE issues bulk claims like confetti. If you get one, request the County Court judge to stay the case pending the result of Beavis at the CoA next year. The judge needs to be made aware of it (many aren't) and PE's solicitor and legal counsel are not averse to hiding this detail from the court.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/pa...

Alternatively ask for a stay for both parties to resolve the dispute via ADR (i.e. using POPLA) to avoid wasting the court's valuable time in trying the case. There have a number of successes using this approach. Normally the motorist is not bound by an adverse POPLA ruling, but tell the judge that you are willing to be as it will help him to decide in your favour because you won't be back before him/her again at a later date.

uk66fastback

16,455 posts

270 months

Saturday 6th December 2014
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
This is likely a judgement by default so there will not have been a hearing, and the Court doesn't post you the claim by recorded delivery.

OP, Parking Eye will have used the address they will have obtained from DVLA so if that was not up to date it explains why you didn't receive the claim particulars.

As has been stated, you need to request the court sets aside the judgement as you were not served and you intend to defend on the grounds you have outlined. Then follow their process.
How do these companies gain access to the DVLA database - do they pay - or are they just *allowed to* since their business is to obtain money from people who have defaulted on parking regulations and that is the only way they can contact them?

Genuine question -

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Saturday 6th December 2014
quotequote all
uk66fastback said:
How do these companies gain access to the DVLA database - do they pay - or are they just *allowed to* since their business is to obtain money from people who have defaulted on parking regulations and that is the only way they can contact them?

Genuine question -
I believe if they are registered with the British Parking Association the DVLA sell your details to them for a small fee.

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Saturday 6th December 2014
quotequote all
uk66fastback said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
This is likely a judgement by default so there will not have been a hearing, and the Court doesn't post you the claim by recorded delivery.

OP, Parking Eye will have used the address they will have obtained from DVLA so if that was not up to date it explains why you didn't receive the claim particulars.

As has been stated, you need to request the court sets aside the judgement as you were not served and you intend to defend on the grounds you have outlined. Then follow their process.
How do these companies gain access to the DVLA database - do they pay - or are they just *allowed to* since their business is to obtain money from people who have defaulted on parking regulations and that is the only way they can contact them?

Genuine question -
Anyone can buy registered keeper information if they have good reason.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 6th December 2014
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
hora said:
un1corn said:
Wait, wasn't the advice always to just throw parking eye tickets in the bin and ignore everything? This is hat the OP has done and got himself a CCJ.
I was reading/thinking this. Feck a CCJ/ignore now.
Binning has not been an option since PoFA 2012. The appeal/PPC rejection/POPLA appeal is the standard method now and advice to that effect has been out there for some time for those who can be bothered to look.

PE issues bulk claims like confetti. If you get one, request the County Court judge to stay the case pending the result of Beavis at the CoA next year. The judge needs to be made aware of it (many aren't) and PE's solicitor and legal counsel are not averse to hiding this detail from the court.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/pa...

Alternatively ask for a stay for both parties to resolve the dispute via ADR (i.e. using POPLA) to avoid wasting the court's valuable time in trying the case. There have a number of successes using this approach. Normally the motorist is not bound by an adverse POPLA ruling, but tell the judge that you are willing to be as it will help him to decide in your favour because you won't be back before him/her again at a later date
There you go again suggesting (wrongly) that something magically changed in 2012. That parking prankster guy whom you appear so to esteem is a good example of an ill informed plastic lawyer dishing out misleading opinions. Getting all emotional and outraged about parking charges like he and others on those loonbat websites do is daft. It's a business racket. There is an answer to it.

No one is obliged to mention anything about Beavis at present as it is not a binding authority unless and until the Court of Appeal rules on the case. If parking prankster had the first clue what he is talking about, he would know that, but instead he happily and ignorantly accuses people of breaching professional ethics. Some guru.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th December 17:31

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Sunday 7th December 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
There you go again suggesting (wrongly) that something magically changed in 2012.
The 'something' was/is my assertion (not suggestion) that PoFA 2012 moved the goalposts by introducing RK liability which, from 1st October that year, made it unsafe to ignore a PCN issued by a PPC. Nothing other than that. To me it represents a pretty fundamental change. What are your reasons for refusing to accept it as fact? Do you even have any or is it just the lawyer in you trying to discredit the person giving evidence? Such tactics may work for you in court before a judge but they won't on here.

Breadvan72 said:
That parking prankster guy whom you appear so to esteem is a good example of an ill informed plastic lawyer dishing out misleading opinions. Getting all emotional and outraged about parking charges like he and others on those loonbat websites do is daft. It's a business racket. There is an answer to it.
I couldn't care less about emotion/outrage (although given that you agree that the PPC industry is a racket maybe it is justified). He has helped people to defeat the racketeers. I respect that. Sneering from outside the ring is easy and cheap. As you're so qualified and experienced what have you done to put them in check?

Breadvan72 said:
No one is obliged to mention anything about Beavis at present as it is not a binding authority unless and until the Court of Appeal rules on the case. If parking prankster had the first clue what he is talking about, he would know that, but instead he happily and ignorantly accuses people of breaching professional ethics. Some guru.
If you say so about obligation who am I to argue? However may I point out that there have been several cases in which PPCs have been citing HHJ Moloney's decision as persuasive authority. When the judge finds out (ALWAYS from the defence of course) that Beavis is subject to appeal there has been much fluttering in the dovecot. The judge in one case (at Stockport County Court) was apparently not at all pleased to discover that the claimant's own lawyer was completely unaware of that salient fact. He promptly ordered a stay.

Do you think it is ethical to bring a case citing as the main plank a judgement which is subject to appeal? And then compound it by failing to properly brief the person appearing on your behalf. I don't. But then I'm not a lawyer nor do I work for a PPC.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 7th December 2014
quotequote all
Ethics require that you cite a binding authority adverse to your position. The fact that a non binding decision is being appealed does not change anything. I am sorry if you find it troublesome when information gets in the way of your opinions, but it happens.

The 2012 Act simply made it possible in some cases to claim against a keeper of a car. It did not alter anything about the underlying claim for parking charges.

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Sunday 7th December 2014
quotequote all
I personally don't see the value, in the interests of justice, delaying what may be hundreds or even thousands of small value claims on the basis of an appeal that may or may not go ahead and have judgment handed down many months into the future.

Claims should be dealt with as the law stands now and only delayed where the stakes or complexity are sufficiently high for all involved parties to warrant the delay for an anticipated precedent.