Sunday, 11 September 2016

Couple lose home from ParkingEye CCJ for car that was not theirs

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.

Prankster Note

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.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. PE kept using our old address despite repeatedly telling them to send correspondence to the new one. Thankfully we had mail redirection in place, and when that ran out (after the 2 years were up) our old and new postmen kept passing the letters on.

  2. My worry is that we now have new bottom feeders, BW Legal, issuing court claims for tickets that were issued four or five years ago based on last previously known address. How many of those are going to end up in default judgements.

  3. i was at Harvester and to be honest didn't pay attention to park so I didn't notice any signs.

    however, I was in Harvester for 12 mins more/over
    than the 2 hours. can anything be done with the £100 fine

  4. Unknown, yes, shout and scream loudly at the manager in the Harvester in the first place. DO NOT pay, go to and post up there.

  5. It should be a legal requirement that before a claim can be progressed, a claimant MUST have certainty of a serviceable address. Service by assumption is just not good enough

    1. That's just not practicable though. How do you obtain certainty? Visit the house and speak to the defendant in person to confirm they are resident there? Defendant's will just refuse to communicate after they've had the LBA.

      A requirement to verify the address in some way would make sense, whether that be by running a trace through a third party, but certainty as a requirement is a pipe dream.

    2. A search of council records for poll tax or voting rights would be a pretty simple thing to do.

    3. Even the electoral roll is mostly out of date. Residents moving out will generally be shown at their previous address until the council sends out Electoral roll confirmation letters, which can only be once a year in non election years.

  6. Got a phone call today telling me to read the following that Theresa May is getting herself involved.

  7. Parking eye refused my set aside, even when the landowner instructed them to cancel the charge