Parking Charge Notice incurred by ex-wife

theargumentbydesign

Thanks again Johnersh - this all makes really good sense. I have written to CEL today and will send by registered post tomorrow. Then I will send in my defence on Tuesday - I have until Saturday to file it.

I'm going with a slightly amended version of yours. Thankyou so much for your time putting this together - and also for putting the name Mrs Shaggy into my head when thinking of my ex. Priceless.


1. The Particulars of Claim served in this matter lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant can identify no proper legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks payment from him.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with CPR Part 16 PD 7.2 and 7.5 - on the assumption that the Claimant, a parking provider, alleges that there was some form of contractual entitlement to charge the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant has prepared this Defence on that assumption as to the Claimant's case and without prejudice to any argument that the Claimant has no such entitlement. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Claimant has any contractual entitlement(s). The Claimant will be put to strict proof.

3. The Defendant reserves the right to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant advance his case on an alternative basis to that pleaded.

4. The Defendant at all material times has been the owner and registered keeper of vehicle xxxx, registration xxx. The Defendant is estranged from his wife, Mrs Shaggy, who at all material times has had sole use of the vehicle. The Defendant has not used the vehicle for a period of 1 year. The Defendant and his wife are undergoing divorce proceedings; the above mentioned vehicle remains registered to the Defendant by reason of the financial matrimonial proceedings not having been resolved.

5. On 24 April 2017 the matter of an outstanding parking charge notice came to the attention of the Defendant who does not reside at the address to which the above mentioned vehicle is registered. All pre-action correspondence has been with Mrs Shaggy, who has admitted to being the driver of the vehicle. The Defendant understands that the Claimant refused to engage in pre-action correspondence with Mrs Shaggy as she was not the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant avers that this was a failure on the part of the Claimant to attempt to recover any losses that they claim to be entitled to from the driver of the vehicle and a failure to comply with the Practice Directions on pre-action conduct.

6. On 16 June 2017 the Defendant became aware of issued court proceedings. The claim particulars were not received by the Defendant until 24 June 2017 although they are dated much earlier (13 June 2017) and were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant took steps to notify the Claimant that he was not the party responsible for using the vehicle and that Mrs Shaggy was the driver. The Claimant has been provided with correspondence from Mrs Shaggy’s solicitors to confirm that this is the case.

7. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle because the Claimant is on notice as to whom the driver was, has correspondence from the driver to confirm that this is the case and is not prejudiced from pursuing the driver, being within all limitation dates to pursue the correct party.

8. In all the circumstances the Defendant denies any liability for the Claimant. If the proceedings are further pursued the Defendant will apply for summary Judgment pursuant to Part 24 CPR and seek the costs of that application from the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts set out in this witness statement are true.

[Deleted User]

Priceless.

Oh, I can assure you that I do have a perfectly reasonable hourly rate and price...

The Defence is yours. I'd be worried if you didn't want to tweak it, given that you need to sign the statement of truth/declaration at the bottom.

Your additions at para 6 effectively add the point I already raise in para 2 with reference to the Court rules - failure to specify details of the contract or conduct giving rise to the contract. That said, it does no harm so it's good to go.

Do be sure to double check it for Shaggy references before sending it off. Apologies for the bad musical references - my paralegal always tells me my playlist needs work.

theargumentbydesign

Coming from a lawyer I don't doubt it!

However, nothing wrong with Shaggy. Although a certain age of audience wouldn't even have known who you were taking about. Unless you were referring to Scooby Doo.

The opportunity for an errant Shaggy reference to slip through in the submitted defence had not escaped me. However much internal amusement it might cause, it's probably not worth it. I will be diligent in removing those instances.

Thanks again for your help. I will post back here when I have news.

theargumentbydesign

My first line was referring to your hourly rate by the way. Not your musical taste...

[Deleted User]

Read as intended. Good luck with it. I look forward to an update in due course.

Coupon-mad

Are you a solicitor, Johnersh?

[Deleted User]

Are you a solicitor, Johnersh?

I am: I hope this isn't a rights of audience challenge !

Don't confuse my take on any situation addressed this forum as specialist legal advice on small claims matters or parking disputes - it isn't. It's just a view, like anyone else's.

Coupon-mad

LOL, no, just wanted to be sure. Your input and defences are appreciated here, along with LoadsofChildren123, it's good to have some legally-qualified opinions and advice.

Us armchair lawyers try our very best but you add something we didn't have before.

[Deleted User]

you add something we didn't have before.

Well, i'm not sure about that, but we'll see.

Frankly, I'm still aghast that a litigant in person should be expected to respond to such inadequately set out Particulars (across the board). If I was a DJ I'd stay everything and demand that the Claimant resubmitted Amended Particulars within 14 days under pain of strike out. It'd free up a lot of court time and resolve this nonsense of pleading your case via witness statements, which is supposed to be the opportunity to set out what you said and what you did only.

The parking co's would soon sharpen up and at least you'd then know what you had to respond to, instead of trying to pre-empt arguments in the Defence.

*Rant over. Gets off soap box. Goes back to writing a dull textbook*

Coupon-mad

I most detest the fact that a PPC can bung in unwarranted claims to old addresses at £25 a pop (or even less if they use a bulk claims Solicitor) and then when the consumer finds they have a default CCJ through no fault of theirs, they have to shell out a huge sum of £255 and literally beg for the rubbish CCJ to be set aside.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!