Do I have a case here?

[des8]

Re: Do I have a case here?

I would suggest the following changes (numbers refer to your paragraphs):

Para 1. I [name] of [address] am the claimant in this claim. The facts in this statement come from my own personal knowledge.
Para 8. is hearsay and not something you know from your own knowledge. Rephrase it to "on dd/mm/yyyy mr ? of the framers informed me that on 05 September 2017 D had ......"
Para 9 list individual calls by date and content if you have the details. If not amend to "I made a number of calls to.the number listed ....."
para 10 should be split into two paras. One records receipt of defence (no need to include it as exhibit as the court already have a copy), Other para records receipt of email dated dd/mm from D
Para 12, omit as there is no need to summarise what you have done
Paras 13 & 14 may be omitted as it is not necessary to quote the relevant acts (but have your own copy handy in court just in case!)

Dates should be expressed thus 05 September 2014


Rather than a plain statement from the framers, obtain a statement in the same form as your WS

[schooleydoo]

Good morning.

I submitted my documents to the court and defence one month ago, as required. It included:

My witness statement
Framers witness statement (confirming phone call with movers)
Framers repair quote
Phone records of calls to movers
Photo of moving crates in my garden
Photos of damage to frame at repairers
Emails between movers and myself

The hearing is tomorrow. The defence has not submitted any documents (at least that I have seen). I did not expect them to attend the hearing.

However, I received an email this morning from the movers, again maintaining that because I did not notify them of the damage within their required 48 hours they are not liable. They provided a link to their website that specifically advises in their terms that notifying the movers is not sufficient, it must be done in writing to the company (this T&C's on their site was updated at 8:50 this morning and for just that one page, the Google cache has been deleted...!)

They also claim in this email that although they admit breaking the glass, they are not responsible for the damage to the frame itself and they would see me tomorrow in court.

So, to my surprise they will attend. If they have not submitted any evidence or documents to the court or myself within the required timeframe, can any of these recently updated terms be used in their defence tomorrow?

[jaguarsuk]

Good morning.

I submitted my documents to the court and defence one month ago, as required. It included:

My witness statement
Framers witness statement (confirming phone call with movers)
Framers repair quote
Phone records of calls to movers
Photo of moving crates in my garden
Photos of damage to frame at repairers
Emails between movers and myself

The hearing is tomorrow. The defence has not submitted any documents (at least that I have seen). I did not expect them to attend the hearing.

However, I received an email this morning from the movers, again maintaining that because I did not notify them of the damage within their required 48 hours they are not liable. They provided a link to their website that specifically advises in their terms that notifying the movers is not sufficient, it must be done in writing to the company (this T&C's on their site was updated at 8:50 this morning and for just that one page, the Google cache has been deleted...!)

They also claim in this email that although they admit breaking the glass, they are not responsible for the damage to the frame itself and they would see me tomorrow in court.

So, to my surprise they will attend. If they have not submitted any evidence or documents to the court or myself within the required timeframe, can any of these recently updated terms be used in their defence tomorrow?

I would give the court a ring and ask if they have had anything because then you'll know if they have served them copies.

The terms seem to be a good thing, as if they are saying the terms apply to you they are admitting they entered into contract with you and that the cash payment you made was to them for the service.

As has been said by others they can't opt out of their liability for damage, so if anything they have just strengthened your case by admitting they entered into contract with you.

[schooleydoo]

Good news, I won.

As you mentioned, the terms worked in my favour but as there was no evidence submitted by the defence beforehand, I wasn't sure how it could be used.

Luckily the defence had prepared a statement and the judge asked if I had any objections to allowing it to be read. I allowed this (hoping they would admit fault) and the defence put forth their argument. They felt they were not liable as I had not made them aware of the claim within 7 day, as their contract terms stated.

I argued that I was not provided a copy of their terms so was unaware of this clause. I also argued that had I been aware, I would still have complied with those terms as the movers were aware of the damage when it occurred. The defence agreed I was not supplied the terms. The judge then ruled that they had breached Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chap 4 sec 49 and awarded me the cost of the frame replacement and court costs.

Had the defence not admitted that I didn't have a copy of the terms and it was his word against mine, I felt it would have been a different outcome. The judge was very interested in the wording of the terms which surprised me as I was under the impression that their terms were ultimately irrelevant, as they still admitted to causing the damage... so quite obviously did not perform the service with reasonable care and skill!

[jaguarsuk]

I also argued that had I been aware, I would still have complied with those terms as the movers were aware of the damage when it occurred.

Had the defence not admitted that I didn't have a copy of the terms and it was his word against mine, I felt it would have been a different outcome.

I think you would have still won as you had made them aware within their terms.

Congrats, hopefully they'll just pay up and that'll be the end of it.