CEL taking my wife to court

Hello again,

Having studied a number of appeals, I have rewritten mine. I have taken a number of different sections/quotes from various appeals, which I believe to be relevant to mine. Hopefully this is more legal-centric, rather than the previous draft which was more of a witness statement.

Just to add to my original post, which was more of an enquiry as to whether I can take this claim upon myself, rather than process if for/with my wife, I will add some main details below:

Back in 2018 the vehicle was recorded as being on private land (an empty pub car park) for 19 minutes. The reason was due to an emergency dashboard light coming on, advising the driver to stop driving immediately.
Weeks later, letters started coming, these were ignored (it worked for me in the past!)
No contact has been made with 'CEL', 'Debt Collection agencies', 'Gladstones' or any other agency/company.

As posted previously, the court claim (from County Court Business Centre, NN1 2LH) has been acknowledged.
Against the advice of KeithP, I've left it to the last minute (stupid, I know, especially with bank holidays etc)

Anyway, I'll copy my defence below:
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXX on the material date. The particulars of the claim state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms and conditions of the car park’ by the driver. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. when parking at XXXX on XX/XX/2018.

2.1 Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; XXX. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. The site where the alleged breach of contract occurred does not display sufficient signage from the road leading onto the property. Neither was there sufficient signage displayed throughout the car park boundaries. Therefore, no legally binding contract can be enforced. This differs from the previously stated Beavis v Parking Eye case, where signage was clearly displayed.

5. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

6. The vehicle in question was recorded as being at the premises for a total of 19 minutes. The total sum being claimed is not reflective of any genuine loss to the land owner. Furthermore, the car park requires no payment for use, so the claimed amount cannot truly reflect any loss sustained.

7. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Signature:

Date:


Thanks to all the people who run this forum - I would've given up by now if this resource wasn't available!

Thank you KeithP, will look over and probably remove para 6.

Yes, very foolish of me to have left it so late...

Worst case, I'll submit it to MCOL and hope its enough. Tempting fate a little I suspect :S