Amending/clarifying Particulars of Claim

[Aspley]

I am the claimant. I took a van in for repair that the garage diagnosed as a blown head gasket. £2800 later the faults are still showing on the van which remains in ‘limp mode’ with engine mgt warning illuminated.
my particulars include the wording ‘redress is sought as the repairs were not carried out with reasonable care and skill’. What I meant by that was not about how well they changed the cylinder head gasket but how they carried out the overall repair. It is play on words I know.

I am now afraid that the defence will focus on how the garage carried out the cylinder gasket repair rather than my claim which is really about misdiagnosis.

How am I able to change the wording in my particulars.

any ideas will be gratefully received. Thanks

[des8]

If the claim form has not yet been served it can generally be amended without the permission of the court.
After service,it can be done with the written consent of all the parties involved or with the court's permission.
CPR 17 contains full details.

Presumably you have not yet received their defence.

Without more details it is not possible to say whether or not your PoC is problematic

[Aspley]

Hi Des, thanks for your interest. Yes, the claim has been served and a defence submitted. The court understandably have asked for an expert report on the ‘standard of the work’ but my claim is about misdiagnosis. The vehicle is still the same as before I paid nearly £3000.
to use an analogy, if the garage had simply changed a wheel to solve the problem, I wouldn’t be interested in if the wheel was changed correctly or not it would have been the diagnosis I would have an issue with.
so, what I want is for the court to more clearly understand that.
hope you can get my drift.

[des8]

So you are claiming that in misdiagnosing the fault they did not use reasonable care and skill.

What exactly does your PoC state?

It is possible that you might be able to rescue the position in your witness statement by showing that you took your car in for repair, the garage said blown gasket and you responded with repair it. It's the whole package that matters.
Whether or not making a misdiagnosis is due to acting without reasonable care and skill can be proved is another matter altogether.
The crux of the matter is what is reasonable. It is generally accepted that relevant to whether a person has met the standard of reasonable care and skill are industry standards or codes of practice.

[Aspley]

Hi, the exact terminology I used in the P of C are
...under section 49, The repairs were not carried out with reasonable care and skill with misdiagnosis of the problem a constant feature ...Section 50, KY relied on the quotation, diagnosis of problem and repair option when deciding to enter into the contract
...Section 51, the repairs were not carried out in a manner that solved the initial problems with the engine. The van remains with Engine management light illuminated and in limp mode
...Section 52, The work was not completed in a timely manner. The vehicle was at the premises of the garage for over 24 weeks despite KY continually asking for the work to be carried out

[des8]

You were concerned the defence would focus on how the garage carried out the replacement of head gasket.
As you certainly included the misdiagnosis within your claim it will be for you to ensure that aspect is properly examined at trial