Court Claim issued, Storm Doris now damaged van UPDATE

[des8]

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

As an amateur mechanic (!) I'd be happy with the report, but pictures/film of a noisy smoking engine might impress others who don't have oily hands!

[fandabby]

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

Ok so maybe I should include them.

How do I inform the court, do I complete a form or telephone them?

Can I upload them and PM you the clips to see if you think they will be effective ? They aren't very long. They will show reg plate though and faces....

Thanks

[des8]

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

I would write a letter, advising the court you wished to include CD disc in your evidence, and if necessary you could bring a lap top to enable a viewing atthe trial.

Certainly PM them if you want, but I'm off to beddy byes now so won't view them till tomorrow!

[des8]

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

Having looked and listened to the videos I would not be using them as evidence.

For those who haven't seen and heard the smoke is similar in intensity to that laid down by WWII destroyers to produce a smoke screen, and the noise (even for a diesel) is indescribable.

To show it will be to invite the defendant to say "you must have seen and heard, and known what you were buying".
Now whilst that is not really a defence they can use, it may allow them to distract the court.
As it is you have, IMO, sufficient evidence with the independent report, so don't jeopardise it.

Do use dated photo's to show the van was undamaged when you parked it up if problems arise over the ripped off bumper.

[fandabby]

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

Thanks Des.

When we viewed the van it did not smoke or make the horrid noise from the engine. It was clearly masked by something and driving it over the week all this appeared and got worse to the extent you saw in the clips, hence rejection in 7 days!

Those photos I took are date stamped 4 December. The only thing I have at the new address is the clip dated 10th January.

Thanks Des

Shall I also leave out the telephone call transcript ?

[des8]

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

Just had another listen to the telephone call, and I see no advantage including a complete transcript.

All he does is to keep repeating he wants a chance to repair, or sell it on for you.
As CRA 2015 only gives the trader the right to repair under final rejection section, this is not a right he has under your short term right to reject.

If this goes to small claims track, and you put too much in the judge (whose ever so busy) won't read it, even though perhaps he should!

[fandabby]

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

Ok great, thanks for your recommendations, do not want to overload the judge or place myself in jeopardy.

I'm just re reading my WS and there are some paragraphs just indicating when I have email CCBC for whatever questions, can I leave these out and only focus on events between me and defendant ?

I probably have more questions coming up so please be patient, just want to be sure I am ready for the 20th so I can have confidence that I'm organised as don't want any surprises.

Many thanks

[des8]

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

At the mo' don't worry about your Witness Statement.
The hearing on 20th is to give the court the info they need to decide which track to allocate the case.
Originally they said "Small claims track", but the clerk then realised it was over £10,000 and so changed it to "Fast track"
Since then a judge has looked at the papers, and possibly seen your original submission that the case should be "small claims" as it is a simple matter that is under dispute i.e. CRA does not give trader right to offer a repair if goods are rejected in first 30 days.
As the hearing has only been given a 30 minute slot just make sure you know why it should be "small claims", don't complicate it with too much information.
It is in your interest to have it held in the small claims track
You'll get your chance to prove your case at that hearing

[fandabby]

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

Thanks for reinforcement.

In the brief moment I will be asked the question about my claim I say on the lines of:

I rejected the vehicle under the CRA 2015 Short term right to reject within the first 30 days because it developed faults during the first week of ownership. The trader refuses to refund and claims right to repair. The CRA does not give the trader a right to offer repair if goods are rejected in the first 30 days. (have with me my cut down notes on CRA to refer to specific points if need be).

Then I wait for more questions and answer accordingly.

If Judge asks what proof I have since the trader has not inspected the vehicle I say the notes logged on the tyre shop invoice detailing oil leak, split cv boot, 1 cracked alloy and 3 tyres needed changing and the independant inspection report which we have sent to the trader several times - all within the 30 days.

If solicitor argues this then I could say under the provision of CRA this van does not conform to being fit for purpose, be of satisfactory quality or as described by the trader.

Does this sound like I could pull this off ?

Oh and to top it off I've killed the printer with all my printing of exhibits, what a nightmare.

Tomorrow I try and fix or buy a new printer.

[des8]

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

Thanks for reinforcement.

In the brief moment I will be asked the question about my claim I say on the lines of:

I rejected the vehicle under the CRA 2015 Short term right to reject within the first 30 days because faults came to light during the first week of ownership.The faults were present but unseen when purchased. The trader refuses to refund and claims right to repair. The CRA does not give the trader a right to offer repair if goods are rejected in the first 30 days. (have with me my cut down notes on CRA to refer to specific points if need be).

Then I wait for more questions and answer accordingly.

If Judge asks what proof I have since the trader has not inspected the vehicle I say the notes logged on the tyre shop invoice detailing oil leak, split cv boot, 1 cracked alloy and 3 tyres needed changing and the independant inspection report which we have sent to the trader several times - all within the 30 days. And also the trader was invited to inspect but declined unless it was with a view to repair

If solicitor argues this then I could say under the provision of CRA this van does not conform to being fit for purpose, be of satisfactory quality or as described by the trader.I'd put those reasons in the first para

Does this sound like I could pull this off ?

Oh and to top it off I've killed the printer with all my printing of exhibits, what a nightmare.

Tomorrow I try and fix or buy a new printer.

Or use the local library printer @10p per sheet!
You have to play the hearing by ear.
It is not worthwhile trying to second guess how it will go .... just know your case!

[fandabby]

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

No news from his Solicitor since my reply. Find that a little odd since they were insisting he inspected it within 7-14 days which has now passed.

I assumed they were trying to settle before the 20th June (allocation hearing) which is why they wanted him to inspect within this time frame.

[fandabby]

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

Good afternoon

I have found out the the allocation hearing has a (lady) District Judge sitting, how do I address - Madam. Judge, Judge (name) or Your Honour ?


thanks

[des8]

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

"Ma'am" will do nicely

[fandabby]

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

Thanks Des, I have Pm'd you ! If you get a minute please will welcome your help. thanks

[fandabby]

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

Good morning

Going back over a few of these threads (147 & 148) and the letters from solicitor and my responses are marked without prejudice, so I leave these out of my WS, is that correct?

Thanks