Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

**Amethyst** · 6th May 2014, 07:19:AM

Re: Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

Originally posted by Anvar.p View Post

Dear All,

I have started a post a month ago about the damage on my bike which has occurred due to bolt falling off.
Original thread: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...oblem&p=425674

Since I've been advised to take the matter further to small claims court, I have filed the case and awaited patiently for defendents reply. The defendant filed an acknowledgement on the 02/05/14 and contesting jurisdiction.

The defendant has up to 28 days now to prepare his defence. Is there anything I need to be doing?
I really cannot afford losing on this just because I was not prepared well enough.
Could you please advise what my further actions should be please.

Thank you in advance.

Anvar

Hiya,

The Defendant will respond to the court within 28 days from service of the claim form (up to 33 days from Issue date), and you will then be sent a copy and have to inform the court whether you wish to proceed. You'll have to complete a directions questionnaire which carries a fee with it and then your case will be allocated to a track. & court.

Have you entered via Moneyclaimonline ?

Could you post a copy of your POC ?

On what basis are they contesting jurisdiction ?

Best

Sharon

**Amethyst** · 6th May 2014, 07:25:AM

Re: Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

This might be a useful overview, although the court fees have changed of course.

Court fees are on leaflet EX50 (attached) Hearing fee is on Page 5.

Attached Files

**Anvar.p** · 19th May 2014, 18:04:PM

Re: Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

Hello Sharon,

sorry for for late reply.

Yes I have submitted the claim through moneyclaimonline.

following is is the POST, I must admit, I messed it up as I couldn't fit all of it in allocated space and was unable to use the separate sheet.
"Particulars of Claim I am claiming a replacement frame and the reconstruction of the bike by a certified bike engineer 26/09/2013 purchased a complete bike from Winstaleybikes.co.uk for £1499.99. Since purchasing the bike I rode it approx. 10-15 times and 300 miles only in fine weather conditions. I have always ensured it is perfectly maintained before and after each ride. On a ride 11/03/2014 a chainring bolt fell off between crank arm and chainstay, causing damage to carbon frame. I raised a claim to the bike manufacturer who refused to cover the damage under warranty referring to the T.C of Limited lifetime warranty. Advised to raise a claim against vendor Winstanley Bikes, they also refuse liability but have passed on an offer from Eddy Merckx, the manufacturer, for 30% off a new frame. I have rejected the offer as received confirmation from the chainring manufacturer that the bolt should not come out hence my contention that the bike is faulty. I beleive that this is a case of s13,14 Sales of goods"

Today I checked the website and found out that the defence was filed and it is as follows:
"On 27/09/2014 Mr Pardaevs bike was despatched following a documented Pre Despatch Inspection by our mechanics. Checking the chain ring bolt tension was part of this inspection. Mr Pardaev received a copy of this documentation as well as a guide to assembly and maintenance. The guide begins with (some important information) (Please take the time to make sure that all nuts, bolts and parts are secure and tyres correctly inflated before your bike is ridden. As all bikes are exposed to varying levels of vibration, it is also important to check that they are secure on a regular basis once the bike is in use). Mr Pardaev states that he ensured the bike was perfectly maintained before and after each ride. Because the chain ring bolt is threaded and that thread did not fail, it can only have worked loose. This would not have happened during the course of one ride and therefore should have been noticed and tightened before it became fully unscrewed and caused any damage. It is therefore my conclusion that the bolts worked loose over the course of several rides, without being noticed or checked, untisomething that would be considered part of any basic end user maintenance inspection or even picked up on when perhaps the bikes was washed. There has been no evidence of a manufacturing defect or fault, nor is there any record of an inherent fault with this product. Mr Pardaev states his claim is based on his receipt of confirmation from the chain ring manufacturer that the bolt should not come out. However, that it eventually did is no evidence of a defect or fault with either the part or initial set up of the bike. For these reasons we have rejected Mr Pardaevs claim of faulty goods (as did the manufacturer that Mr Pardaev tried to claim against) and stated that the issue was as a result of a lack of maintenance and therefore not covered by the warranty. Mr Pardaev is still in possession of the bike. It is my genuine opinion that this issue could have been avoided if all normal measures to maintain the bike had been carried out. The goods supplied were fit for purpose and free of any fault. I am not defending this case without compassion for Mr Pardaev and his situation. As such I will still honour the 30% discount on a replacement frame. Should he wish us to carry out the swap we would do so with no charge for labour, collection or re-delivery of the bike. The reference in my acknowledgement of service to contesting jurisdiction was with a view to moving a potential hearing to a court local to Winstanleys Bikes in Wigan. Best Regards"

Just to clarify the last bit "generous" discount is given by frame manufacturer and I am entitled to get it through ANY bike shop I choose not necessarily the defendant's goodwill.

please help as I'm a bit lost and don't know where I can start.

many thanks ap

Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

Small claims court, defendant chose to defend, please advise

Comment

Comment

Comment