** Won ** Issuing court proceedings against car dealer (Small court claims) help

[mac132]

The Claim form does not need to be attached with the detailed POC you only need to send the detailed POC to the defendant as MCOL will send the claim form for you.

On the same page of the particulars of claim box you will see a tickbox that says "you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant" and when you tick this box and go on to the next stage there will be some wording automatically inserted at the end of the POC that says something like you agree to send detailed particulars of claim within 14 days after service of the claim form.

As for the brief details of the claim, you can re-use point 1 so it says something like below

1. The Claimant seeks damages arising out of a contract entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant on [date] in which the Claimant agreed to repair the vehicle in the event that it did not pass its next MOT test. Despite the Defendant producing a valid MOT certificate certifying the vehicle as being roadworthy, an independent inspection confirmed that the agreed repairs were never carried out.

That should fit into the box and assuming you ticked the detailed particulars option, the additional wording will show underneath.

When you send the POC to the defendant you need to complete a certificate of service and send it to the court which is just a tickbox exercise (click here).

I'm happy with the brief POC , your version definitely reads better so only made slight amendments and added certain points you've previously posted to fit, (box ticked). I've included court fees, additional costs and sum I am claiming on the detailed version of POC rather than brief, hopefully that's fine
Also at any point do I send my detailed POC to court , just so they have track of what is being sent. I've noticed Certificate of service form states "Please attach copies of the documents you have not already filed with the court."

As far as the detailed version of POC this is what I've come up with combining everything together. Although Des did previously mention a lot of these details will be used at later stage (witness statement) I think its quite concise for the detailed version. I'd like to know your thoughts.


BETWEEN:

XX (Claimant)
vs
XX (Defendant)

Ref: XX

1.The Claimant seeks damages arising out of a contract entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant on 20 May 2018 in which the Claimant agreed to purchase a vehicle for the price of £2600.

2.It was a term of the contract that the Defendant agreed to carry out any repairs if the vehicle did not pass its next MOT test. Furthermore, the contract was a consumer one and sections 9 to 11 (inclusive) and section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 were incorporated into the contract as implied terms.

3.On 27 May 2018, the vehicle was inspected prior to its MOT identifying several faults that would cause the vehicle to fail an MOT test.
The Claimant returned the vehicle to the Defendant to carry out the necessary repairs and the Defendant presented the Claimant with a MOT certificate certifying the vehicle as roadworthy.


4.Despite the Defendant producing a valid MOT certificate certifying the vehicle as being roadworthy, a further inspection confirmed that the repairs were not carried out by the Defendant in breach of contract and resulting in loss and damage to the Claimant.

5.Furthermore, Claimant was made aware vehicle with such defects is not deemed roadworthy, and illegal. Inspection have listed faults as follows:

• Rear shock absorbers (both)
• Rear bump stops (both)
• Nearside front (cut) Offside front and offside rear need require immediate attention
• Front tyres different sizes (Illegal)
• Wipers Smearing (dangerous)
• (video and report available)

6.Defendant has assured Claimant, vehicle is free of defects and roadworthy. Defendant has misdescribed the vehicle and mislead the Claimant.

7.The goods were misdescribed by Defendant, not fit for purpose, nor of satisfactory quality, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 section.

8.The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality. However, the vehicle is clearly not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality. Defendant is therefore in breach of contract.

9.Despite numerous written requests on 19 June 2018 which Defendant acknowledged, the Defendant has ignored the notices of rejection and remains indebted to the Claimant.

Accordingly, the Claimant claims the sum of £2600.
Court costs of £105.
Additional costs of £XX.
Interest in accordance with section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


EDIT: maybe worth to make it more clear that the vehicle was rejected within 30 days somewhere?

[mac132]

Update: Two months have passed since I submitted my POC. Defendant submitted his defence. I have recently received Notice of Allocation to the small claims track (hearing). Hearing date is set for Jan 2019. I am now required to submit my Witness statement which is in progress. I will post here shortly before I send it to court & defendant (deadline is in 3 weeks).

My question is : a lot of my evidence I rely on are text messages and videos. Can this be sent on pen drive or submitted online to the court?

also MCOL doesn't give an option to submit WS or pay trial fee, although it states online that you may pay via MCOL, so I'm a bit confused as its not clear on the letter.

As of the WS itself , this is where I include absolutely everything in as much detail as possible ?

Advise will be appreciated.

[ostell]

And keep a check on the company at Companies house so that you can object to any attempts to wind up the company.

[mac132]

And keep a check on the company at Companies house so that you can object to any attempts to wind up the company.

He has another active company listed, I keep an eye out for it. What are my options if he resigns or winds up? Who do I inform ?

[ostell]

the Companies House listing will say if the company is attempting to wind up. You contact Companies House to object if they try

[mac132]

the Companies House listing will say if the company is attempting to wind up. You contact Companies House to object if they try

Absolutely brilliant advice, I check up on them everyday. Thank you.

[des8]

https://www.gov.uk/object-to-a-limit...ing-struck-off

[mac132]

Can someone advise me on the following:
In what form do you send out evidence in form of a video , text message? (which I assume needs to be sent with my witness statement)

[mac132]

Here is my Witness statement draft - feedback / comments will be much appreciated. Anything I should add / amend ?

IN THE XXX COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: XXXXX

BETWEEN:

XXXXX (Claimant)
vs
XXXXXX (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT

REF: XXXX

I XXXX of XXXXXX am the Claimant in this claim. I make this Witness Statement in support of my claim which is due to be heard on XXXXXX at XXX County Court.
The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.

1.On 20 May 2018 Claimant purchased the vehicle referenced above from Defendant with presumably a 6-month warranty for additional £110. At the time of purchase vehicle’s MOT was due shortly.

2.Defendant has assured Claimant that vehicle has been inspected and is free of defects.
3. Defendant agreed to carry out any repairs in the event the vehicle would not pass its next MOT and cover any MOT fees. This is stated on the invoice. On 24 May 2018 the vehicle had an independent inspection at XXXXX and Claimant was made aware of the following defects for which the vehicle would fail MOT.

These Include:
Wishbones front (both)
Ball joints front (both)
Breaks front (both)
Anti-roll bar bush

4. Claimant informed Defendant of the following. Defendant suggests to bring the vehicle back to XXXX as they will put it through an MOT and carry out repairs.

5. Claimant returned the vehicle to Defendant for repairs to be carried out and MOT like agreed prior to purchase. Claimant requested Defendant to cover travel expenses to which Defendant agreed to.

6. No travel expenses were covered nor 6-months warranty was ever received as agreed, it seems that 6-month warranty is non-existent and was only mentioned to increase the vehicle’s price. “6-month warranty to be emailed to customer” was hand written on the invoice by Defendant.

7. Correspondence confirms Defendant agreeing to carry out the repairs and stating “everything will get checked over” All correspondence with Defendant will be available as evidence.

8. From 2 June 2018 to 9 June 2018 vehicle was in Defendant’s possession to carry out repairs and MOT.


9. Despite providing Defendant with the list of defects. Many were not carried out as agreed and disregarded leaving Claimant with repair costs in excess of £500. When questioned about the repairs, Defendant stated MOT in Claimant’s area is stricter, therefore only certain repairs needed to be carried out. These include:

• Brake discs
• Brake pads
• Nearside Front Headlamp aim too low
• Parking brake lever adjustment

10. Suspicious of the Defendant, a further inspection was arranged on 18 June 2018 by XXXXX. They have listed the faults as follows:

• Rear shock absorbers (both)
• Rear bump stops (both)
• Nearside front (cut) Offside front and offside rear need require immediate attention
• Front tyres different sizes (Illegal)
• Wipers smearing screen (dangerous)
• (video and full report available including cost of repairs in evidence of the above)

11. To verify the first diagnosis was correct I have arranged with XXXX to check the condition of the wishbones, XXX has confirmed:

• Two front suspension arms have play in rear bushes

12. On 19 June 2018 rejection notice was sent to Defendant stating reasons for rejection of the vehicle along with video and report as evidence requesting full refund under the grounds that the vehicle was mis-described, not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality as per Claimant’s 30 day right to reject under The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

13. Defendant has acknowledged the rejection notice and stated to leave it with him via WhatsApp message.

14. Despite numerous written requests after initial rejection, the Defendant has ignored the notices of rejection.

15. Defendant has not made sure vehicle was inspected thoroughly as agreed and stated via text message prior to purchase.

16. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods of satisfactory quality and free of defect. However, the vehicle is not fit for purpose and not of satisfactory quality. Defendant is therefore in breach of contract.

17. Since rejection notice was sent, vehicle is not in use. Claimant has incurred additional monthly fees.

Accordingly, the Claimant claims the sum of £2600.
Court costs of £XX.
Trial costs of £XX.
Additional costs of £XX.
Interest in accordance with section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit.

Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true.

[mac132]

Update: The small courts hearing took place yesterday at my local county court.
The Judge stated the hearing will be informal, and began by asking (me - the claimant) to present my case and evidence.
There was only me, defendant and the judge of-course in the room.

Although the Judge did go in my favour he did not think I had the right to reject the vehicle as he did not consider some of the listed defects i.e The Judge did not consider rear shock absorbers to be faulty , although In the video I played him It was stated by qualified inspector that they're broken and need new ones. They were not considered to be faulty because it wasn't specifically stated this is a dangerous / major or illegal defect on the video. The Judge very much relied up on keywords here. Had the examiner of the vehicle specifically stated this is i.e dangerous / major defect, the Judge would have no problems considering it as a faulty defect.

When you're presenting your evidence to the judge , you need to think of it as you're presenting it to someone who was zero basic knowledge about cars, therefore evidence needs to be crystal clear. The categories (dangerous, major and minor) played a massive part here and would have definitely helped. This could make the difference between winning or losing your case.

When the evidence of wishbones was shown to the Judge, he also decided not to consider it as the fact that Two front suspension arms have play in rear bushes did not mean anything to him. Therefore were not considered as a faulty.

The Judge did consider the below:

• Front tyres different sizes (Illegal)
• Wipers smearing screen (dangerous)
• Nearside front (cut)

As the examiner specifically stated wipers were "dangerous" and different sized tyres of front axle are "illegal", the judge did take this very seriously.

If I was to do anything differently I would have arranged a second MOT asap without doing too many miles as this will make it harder to prove your case preferably by a well known company i.e Kwikfit or Halfords as all defects are categorised. This would have made the case much stronger.

Anyways I just wanted to share my experience and the outcome with anyone who is awaiting their trial and was in similar situation as me.

The Defendant was ordered to pay £440 to me, this includes all legal fees, loss of earnings, travel expenses, cost of repairs for the above.

Many thanks to R0B Ostell and Des for your input and anyone else who has contributed towards this case.

[des8]

Thanks for letting us know the result.
Feedback as detailed as yours is always helpful

[Bartlomiej]

Hi guys,

Sorry to post in that topic but I have similar problem and I still have no answers. If any of you could take a look and help I would be really grateful:

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...-accept-return

Thanks in advance,

[ostell]

You have several answers on your thread with sugestions on the way foward.
PlEAS DO NOT HIJACK