Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

And yes I would add it to your WS and exhibits. If you just bring it up on the day they might be able to argue it's not admissable, or even adjourn things to assess, so be as upfront as possible. When's your WS going in ? ( 2 weeks?)

Just seen this, so I would add his advert to back of my WS and exhibit to ensure it is admissable.

Would I just say something like:

I note the Defendant has an active advert on his website, www.xxx and ebay (exhibit 66) for a VW facelift - noting the price £1,250.

WS being posted 23rd. Yikes.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Yes I would. I'd slot the mention of it in near the mention of the formal quotation though rather than just shoving it as a afterthought xxx

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

So I have come up with this to be following the receiving of the bodyshop quote :


Defendant’s advert (exhibit 61) for a VW T5 FACELIFT T5 T0 T5.1 OR T6 SPORTLINE £1,250. I wanted to see how much the Defendant charges in comparison to the <bodyshop> repair quote for a replacement bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed.

The Defendant’s advert includes a new bumper, bonnet, headlights, bulbs, wiring, sportline rep splitter, black gloss grill, all sprayed to match the van.



Is this okay to add - or should I word it differently ?

Many thanks

[ostell]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Remember to include that this is the retail charge and so the cost to him will be significantly less, probably less than £1,000

You could also state that this is specifically less then the amount quoted by previously, casting doubt on the veracity of his statement

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Remember to include that this is the retail charge and so the cost to him will be significantly less, probably less than £1,000

You could also state that this is specifically less then the amount quoted by previously, casting doubt on the veracity of his statement -

So paragraphs to read something like:

Defendant’s advert (exhibit 61) for a VW T5 FACELIFT T5 T0 T5.1 OR T6 SPORTLINE £1,250. I wanted to see how much the Defendant charges in comparison to the <bodyshop> repair quote for a replacement bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed.

The Defendant’s advert includes a new bumper, bonnet, headlights, bulbs, wiring, sportline rep splitter, black gloss grill, all sprayed to match the van all for £1,250 which is the retail price, however the cost to the Defendant likely to be significantly less, probably less than £1,000. This advert also includes more work as apposed to the replacement of a bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed quoted by <bodyshop> to offer like for like repair.

? Not sure what to state when you comment on "You could also state that this is specifically less then the amount quoted by previously, casting doubt on the veracity of his statement" ??

Thanks

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Sorry guys just rewording the extra bit for the WS.

Does this sound ok now? [MENTION=38669]Des[/MENTION] appreciate if you could cast your eye over too please when you get chance. Many thanks


This to be placed next point following receiving the bodyshop quote:


Defendant’s advert (exhibit 61) for a VW T5 FACELIFT T5 T0 T5.1 OR T6 SPORTLINE £1,250. I wanted to see how much the Defendant charges in comparison to the <bodyshop> repair quote for a replacement bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed.

The Defendant’s advert includes a new bumper, bonnet, headlights, bulbs, wiring, sportline rep splitter, black gloss grill, all sprayed to match the van all for £1,250. This cost listed is the retail price, however the cost to the Defendant is likely to be significantly less, probably less than £1,000.

This advert also includes more work as opposed to the replacement of a bumper and side wing, fitted and sprayed quoted by Taylor & Bushnell to offer like for like repair.

The retail cost for the Defendant to undertake this facelift (which includes extras) is specifically less than the amount quoted by <bodyshop>.


Once you guys think this is ok then I will update all the paperwork. Many thanks

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

You've been busy while I was out, but it sounds fine to me.

It's good to see from his advert that he has lots of assets if he becomes awkward about paying when you get judgement..... positive, that's me!

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Dodgy van dealer's WS now available (https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqtA1NDCtfOqg3k81WiTcFZ0-VgT)

What is notable at first glance are the lack of exhibits, and the gaps in the timeline.

On a closer examination paragraph 42 is most interesting.
He tries to show that because Fandabby had examined the vehicle she accepted its condition which then negates her statutory rights (interesting proposition!!)
However more interesting is the statement ".. I reiterate the points made in my defence....in addition to making the following comments" and then follows the series of points trying to make out that Fandabby was a victim of caveat emptor.
It is a blatant attempt by his solicitor to add to the filed defence, which surely requires court's permission.
not concerned about the attempt, just the protocol.

Does any one think it worth pointing it out to the court? If it was a LIP I wouldn't bother, but as it is this bully of a solicitor ........ @Amethyst @R0b

[R0b]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Well it should be raised paragraph 40 onwards regarding the defence points and request they be struck out and disregarded since a WS is a statement of fact and not to advance legal arguments, especially if there are additional legal points that were not contained within the original defence.

I've only had a quick scan but there is always going to be an issue with a high mileage vehicle, though you would still expect the van to be of satisfactory quality, and any position of caveat emptor cannot overrule consumer rights.

For the price paid (£14k I think it was?) you would expect the car to last longer without fault and be in a roadworthy condition. 550 miles isn't really that much if you break it down. For example, 50 miles means you've only really had 10 days usage on average. In any event, it would certainly be less than one month's worth of use if you want to be more generous about it.

I haven't really kept track of this thread so I may be running over old ground here. One thing I spotted was there seems to be two witness statements, one shorter than the other whats up with that?

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Thanks [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]
The second WS is from defendants friend who was previous owner and can be ignored.

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Good morning

I have just had an email from Defendant's solicitor informing me they have a Barrrister now and have submitted a skeleton to court and copied me which they are relying on in court.

Can they produce this document day before hearing ? It is tomorrow at 10am ?

Thanks

Should I have also received a change of legal representative notice ? Which I have not or are these not needed because the Solicitor has taken this Barrister on ?

[des8]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] What thinks you?

I have already responded to OP via PM.
The main problem in the skeleton is that at the beginning there was an agreement for a sliding window to be repaired, and a smoking problem to be looked at, and the barrister is claiming that meant OP elected for repair.
I'm suggesting the agreement applies solely to the window, possibly the smoking but not to all the other faults and so short term right to reject has not been lost

[R0b]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Maybe too little too late for this but usually a skeleton is giving 3 days in advance to the hearing, if you were given it 24 hours before you could request an adjournment on the basis of having no opportunity to review the skeleton. You would not have received any change of notice for representation unless the trader has switched solicitors, or gone directly to the barrister. If the solicitors have simply instructed a barrister then there is no change.

You should also argue that any legal arguments in the witness statement should be struck out particularly about the defence as it is not a statement of fact and seeks to introduce further arguments not contained within the original defence.

@des8 I see your point but perhaps it depends if the other faults were known after it was agreed to repair or before. If after, then arguably the realisation of further faults occurring could displace any previous agreement to repair and still allow the right to reject. It's a moot point I think.

[fandabby]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

Still waiting to go in.

I will ask that recent submissions be struck out and let Judge decide.

[Kati]

Re: Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

good luck [MENTION=97105]fandabby[/MENTION] xx