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:
• 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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
• 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.
The fact that you didn’t pro-actively notify them of an overseas address might be raised, but:
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.
On the problematic Particulars of Claim:
• 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.
That gives you a real prospect of successfully defending the claim if the judgment is set aside.
So, the combination is powerful:
• 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.
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:
• Did pay for parking (receipt/app record).
• Left before the paid time expired.
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.
