This Daily Mail link tells the story/.
ParkingEye issued a parking charge against a car which a couple had sold 5 years ago. Because the DVLA had failed to update the address properly, despite the owner claiming he had informed them, the charge notices all went to the old owner.
ParkingEye then issued a court claim, failing to do basis checks that the address they were writing to was the correct one, and that the purported owner was still there. They obtained a default judgment and a CCJ for non-payment.
This only came to lighr when the couple attempted to move, after they had completed the sale on their house but before the new purchase was completed. The new purchase was blocked, essentially leaving the couple homeless.
ParkingEye have refused to remove the CCJ despite requests.
This is not an isolated incident and so any responsible parking company would know there is a reasonable chance that the address given to them by the DVLA was never correct. Before taking court action they shouldhave therefore taken reasonable steps to confirm their data was correct, such as using a tracing agent. At the time of filing the court claim their entire investment would have been paying £2.50 to the DVLA.
Hundreds of people have been caught out by this by ParkingEye along these lines. One company, Casehub is preparing a class action against then
Any motorist who has found they have a CCJ from ParkingEye which they previously knew nothing about should contact casehub to join the action.
The Prankster has suggested to the British Parking Association that the code of practice should be updated to require parking companies to verify a motorist's address before taking legal action if they previously had no contact from the motorist and therefore no confirmation the address they were using is correct.
The BPA debated this change but decided against it.
ParkingEye's Mark Anfield is a director on the BPA Board of Representatives.
In the Daily Mail article a ParkingEye spokesman said: ‘Where individuals provide evidence they have received a CCJ by default due to ParkingEye receiving incorrect address details, we will consent to the judgment being set aside, often at our expense.’
The Prankster has previously found this not to be the case, with ParkingEye defending set-asides tooth-and-nail. ParkingEye have also previously refused to drop court claims even when they have been informed the vehicle was sold at the time. However, if this is a new direction from ParkingEye, The Prankster would welcome them publicising this on their website and providing motorists of details on how to begin the process.
The Parking Prankster