Received a civil money claim - please help!

[R0b]

Looks fine in principle although I didn't see the reference to not going into detail about evidence if that's going to be covered on another page. As far as I read it, there's only 2 real allegations which is mis-description and not fit for purpose. The point about the dealer, well that might be construed as a misrepresentation allegation but it's not been fully pleaded in my eyes and the claimant shouldn't have an opportunity to argue that. But, it's your defence so you decide how you want to plead your defence.

Only thing I would say is you could weave in the paragraph below.

The Claimant's reasons for the claim has failed to sufficiently identify the relevant issues so as to understand the case pleaded against me. The reasons for the claim ought to set out the basic facts and explain what legal consequences flow from those facts, in such a way that those facts contribute to the cause of action. Furthermore, the reasons for the claim, as currently drafted consist merely of assertions and are not proper particulars which comply with rule 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Optionally, you could include this but that depends on whether you only see 2 or 3 allegations.

As far as I am able to interpret, the Claimant's reasons for the claim are based on two allegations: (1) the car was not as described and (2) the car was not fit for purpose. Accordingly, my defence is based solely on those two allegations and should the Claimant seek to introduce any new allegations at a later stage, I will take issue with the same and ask that the court reject any attempts to do so.

As for fit for purpose, that is a legal term of art i.e. it has a specific legal meaning. This meaning is that the goods should be fit for the purpose in which they are supplied and any specific purpose mentioned by the buyer. As far as I can see, they've only referenced the allegation that the car is not fit for purpose but not explained how or why - they talk about the car being mis-described but not sure where the not fit for purpose allegation comes into it, unless they're suggesting that because the car was allegedly in an accident or because it was a part-ex means it wasn't fit for purpose. That's a bit of a stretch in my view without further evidence. You could counter this with something below.

The phrase 'fit for purpose' is a legal term of art. However, the Claimant has not properly set out the allegations as regards to the vehicle not being fit for purpose. It is denied, to the extent the Claimant argues that, because the vehicle was involved in an accident (as alleged by the Claimant), that the vehicle could not be fit for its intended purpose. On the contrary, the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition, it was inspected and road-tested by the Claimant prior to the vehicle being purchased and, as far as I am able to ascertain, the vehicle successfully passed it's MOT in the previous 2 years. In any event, the principle caveat emptor applies.

Just a few examples of what you could add in but it is entirely down to you on how you set it out.

[McAdam]

Thanks again for taking the time to help me with this R0b. You are being very helpful!

This is exactly what I am struggling to understand. The claimant doesn't do a great job with the allegations by not explaining how it was miss-described or not fit for purpose.#

I didn't really understand what you meant when saying "I didn't see the reference to not going into detail about evidence if that's going to be covered on another page".
Also, did you manage to take a look at the attached photo? I'm not entirely sure if I am supposed to write all this in that small box.

[R0b]

Yes I did read the page and it's not clear about how much you should put in as your defence or if there's another page for evidence as I've not used the money claims system used by the Claimant t as it's a trial system at the moment.

But if the court confirmed this is your whole defence then it's better safe than sorry to cover your back and all allegations. Otherwise as the page says, what you dont with, will be deemed as an admission.*

Have you tried to copy your defence in the box, it might expand as I couldnt see a character limit on there.

Also if you post up your final draft we can take a look before you submit. You may want to re-read it before hand as there might be errors or typos in there. Also the examples ove given do sound a bit legalistic so you may want to simplify them i.e. plain english but it doesnt matter too much I think either way

[McAdam]

I tried pasting everything in the box and it does indeed expand and it lets you write as much as you want.

Please also let me know if the way I responded in section two points 2 and 3 looks ok. The way the claimant wrote the timeline gave me no choice but to chain multiple sentences and mention which ones I am denying. These conversations took place over the phone and I have never advised something like this. According to 16.5 Civil Procedure Rules I am supposed to give a reason when I'm denying an allegation. How could I phrase this?


I also added what you mentioned in your last post and the defence now looks like this.

Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

1. The Claimant's reasons for the claim has failed to sufficiently identify the relevant issues so as to understand the case pleaded against me. The reasons for the claim ought to set out the basic facts and explain what legal consequences flow from those facts. Furthermore, the reasons for the claim, as currently drafted consist merely of assertions and are not proper particulars which comply with rule 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

1. 2. As far as I am able to interpret, the Claimant's reasons for the claim are based on two allegations: (1) the car was not as described and (2) the car was not fit for purpose. Accordingly, my defence is based solely on those two allegations and should the Claimant seek to introduce any new allegations at a later stage, I will take issue with the same and ask that the court reject any attempts to do so.

1. 3. The phrase 'fit for purpose' is a legal term of art. However, the Claimant has not properly set out the allegations as regards to the vehicle not being fit for purpose. It is denied, to the extent the Claimant argues that, because the vehicle was involved in an accident (as alleged by the Claimant), that the vehicle could not be fit for its intended purpose. On the contrary, the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition, it was inspected and road-tested by the Claimant prior to the vehicle being purchased and, as far as I am able to ascertain, the vehicle successfully passed its MOT in the previous year. I would also like to add that I drove the car on a daily basis without any issues. In any event, the principle caveat emptor applies.

1. 4. It is denied that the car was misdescribed as suggested by the Claimant. The mileage of the vehicle as described on the advert was taken directly from the odometer. In any event, I have checked the vehicle's MOT history through https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ which confirms that the mileage recorded on the last MOT check was 42,704 miles. On top of this, the HPI check that I done prior purchasing the car states no mileage issues. Accordingly, the Claimant is required to prove by way of expert evidence that the vehicle has not been driven 48,000 miles as described.

1. 5. I fail to see the causal link between the engine having been replaced (as suggested by the Claimant) and the vehicle haven been driven 48,000 miles as recorded on the odometer, which is a factually correct. Furthermore, I had no knowledge that the vehicle's engine had been replaced but in any event, it does not follow that because the vehicle's engine (in the eyes of the Claimant) may have been replaced, that the vehicle did not accrue the mileage as described. This is because accrued vehicle mileage relates to how far the car has been driven in its lifetime and not specifically tied to the engine, since the engine could have been replaced for various reasons.

1. 6. I had no knowledge that the vehicle has been in an accident. I have carried out a HPI check prior purchasing the vehicle through https://totalcarcheck.co.uk/ which confirms that the vehicle has never been involved in an accident. Additionally I have been advised by the person I purchased the vehicle from, that it was never involved in an accident.(via Facebook messenger)

1. 7. It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the person obtained the vehicle as an exchange for his old car.

I do not accept the Claimant’s timeline of events, in particular:

1. 2. 26.02 – 7.3.2020: It is admitted that I advised the claimant the timing chain may need tightening or replacing. I cannot comment on what their mechanic and auto electrician may have advised. I have no connection with the motor trade and don’t possess any specialist knowledge of vehicles. I would also like to bring to the court's attention that the Claimant is disingenuous because on the date he sent me a text message requesting £150 refund towards repairing the timing chain and yet in the claim it clearly states the timing chain was not an issue.

1. 3. 7^th March: It is denied that I advised the claimant he should sell the car on. It is also denied I advised that I purchased the car from a friend and It is also denied that my profile on Facebook was removed. My Facebook profile is active and it was throughout all this time. I would also like to mention that during this time I was always replying to all of the claimant’s messages and phone calls.

1. 4. 17^th March: It is denied that I refused the letter. The claimant is clearly mentioning that the correspondence had been addressed to the property next door.

1. 5. 7^th May 2020: I confirm that I received the claimant’s letter. As mentioned I replied straight away advising that I did not receive the first letter and I attached the HPI and receipt of purchase. It is denied I advised that I bought the car as part exchange or from a dealer. My advice was that I purchased the car from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied that I advised on 7^th March it was purchased from a friend.

The Claimant’s evidence is disputed with regards to the following:

1. It is denied that the letter send 17^th March was refused by me. The claimant is clearly stating that the he had sent the letter to the property next door.

1. 2. The Copart advert for Lot (33801297) states the sale date Tue. Aug 08, 2017. Prior being in my possession the vehicle had successfully passed MOT’s and a HPI check done by me (the defendant) on 20^th June 2019. Neither of these mention any advisories and the HPI check clearly states no issues uncovered. I would also like to mention that this was the first time I was made aware the car had previously been written off.

1. 3. It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied I advised the car was purchased from a friend.

Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Mr. Marius Adam
date

[McAdam]

Edit - Posted same reply twice.

[des8]

Just popping in to say the car has never been written off.
Copart allegedly sold the car and gave it a U classification.

U category is solely saying that it is unrecorded by the Association of British Insurers and has not been allocated a salvage code
It does not indicate a write off or even accident damage, and is completely unofficial

I think you should not just deny knowledge of any accident, but put claimant to proof.
If it is accepted by the court the car has been in an accident, even if you were unaware, you could be found guilty of innocent misrepresentation

[McAdam]

Hi des8,

Are you referring to section 3 point 2? Could you help me edit it accordingly?

[des8]

At Sec 1 1.6 I would delete " I had no knowledge that the vehicle has been in an accident.* and at sec 3 1.2 "I would also like to mention that this was the first time I was made aware the car had previously been written off." as they imply agreement that the vehicle been involved in an accident/was written off.

He has offered no proof the car was in an accident or written off.
A mechanic allegedly said the vehicle had been in an accident.
How does the engineer know? was he there?
All he can say is that certain work has been carried out from which he supposes it was involved in an accident?
We don't know what led to that statement... could it be the car was deteriorating and parts were replaced due to corrosion?

Coparts classification "u" is completely unofficial.

IMO you do better to challenge in court rather than deny knowledge of an accident. Denying knowledge suggests you agree there was an accident, but you were unaware of it. That equals innocent misrepresentation and you could lose. If the matter comes up, make the claimant prove it.

? R0b

[McAdam]

des8 thanks for clarifying.
I was thinking that the Copart ad with the pictures of the car showing it was in an accident was the proof that it actually was in an accident?
I'm not sure if you seen this?
https://www.copart.co.uk/lot/33801297/Photos

[R0b]

I've updated defence below, making some changes to the first sections mainly because it sounded a little too legalistic whereas the rest of it didn't, so I've dumbed it down into plain English, however you are free to use as much or as little as you want.

I think there's some overlap with the defence section and then the timelime of events and evidence, particularly around the knowledge of accident and HPI etc. I think it would make sense to wrap it all up on the front end of the defence and delete any repetition.

Des I get your point, but the claimant hasn't pleaded misrepresentation, he hasn't even mentioned the word itself so I think it would be inherently unfair for the claimant to rely on something not pleaded. I would be surprised if a judge would allow misrep when the claim details start off by mentioning mis-description and not fit for purpose, so its not unreasonable to plan your defence around that. However, court is unpredictable so it is possible a judge would allow it, but I would see that as a slim chance.

1. Rule 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) requires the Claimant to provide a concise statement of facts and the legal consequences that flow from those facts, so as to understand the case pleaded against me. The reasons for the claim, as currently drafted, consist merely of assertions and are in adequate for the purposes of compliance with CPR 16.4.

2. So far as I am able to understand, the reasons for the claim suggest that the Claimant has pleaded that the car (1) was not as described and (2) it was not fit for purpose. This defence will therefore address those two allegations only. Should the Claimant seek to introduce new allegations at a later stage, I will object and ask the court to reject any attempts to do so on the basis that the allegations have not been pleaded.

(A) Car not fit for purpose

3. The Claimant has failed to explain in sufficient detail how or why he believes that the car is not fit for purpose. Nonetheless, it is denied that the car at the time of sale was not fit for its intended purpose and in fact, the car was in a roadworthy condition. This is because:

(i) The car had been inspected and road-tested by the Claimant prior to being purchased.
(ii) The vehicle had successfully passed its MOT in the past two years.
(iii) I have driven the car on a daily basis without any issues.
(iv) In any event, the principle caveat emptor applies.

(B) Car not as described

4. I do not accept that the car was mis-described. The Claimant suggests that the car has previously been in an accident, but I fail to see the relevance of what that has to do with the car’s mileage. The mileage stated on the advert was taken directly from the odometer. Furthermore, I have checked vehicle’ MOT history on https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ which confirms that the last recorded mileage was 42,704 miles (with the rest of the mileage being accrued whilst in my possession). In addition to this, the HPI check that I done prior purchasing the car stated no mileage issues. The Claimant is required to prove by way of expert evidence that the vehicle has not been driven 48,000 miles as described.

5. It does not automatically follow that because the vehicle may have been in accident –- of which I had no knowledge - that the vehicle did not accrue the mileage as stated on the advert. The Claimant is required to prove the causal link between the car having been in an accident and the stated mileage.

6. The Claimant also states that I told him that I purchased the car from the dealer as a part exchange. This is not true. I did, however, say that the car was purchased from someone who obtained it in a part exchange for his older car which is not the same thing as alleged by the Claimant.

(C) The Claimant’s timeline of events

7. I do not accept the Claimant’s timeline of events, in particular:

(i) 26.02 – 7.3.2020: It is admitted that I advised the claimant the timing chain may need tightening or replacing. I cannot comment on what their mechanic and auto electrician may have advised. I have no connection with the motor trade and don’t possess any specialist knowledge of vehicles. I would also like to bring to the court's attention that the Claimant is disingenuous because on the date he sent me a text message requesting £150 refund towards repairing the timing chain and yet in the claim it clearly states the timing chain was not an issue.

(ii) 7th March: It is denied that I advised the claimant he should sell the car on. It is also denied I advised that I purchased the car from a friend and It is also denied that my profile on Facebook was removed. My Facebook profile is active and it was throughout all this time. I would also like to mention that during this time I was always replying to all of the claimant’s messages and phone calls.

(iii) 17th March: It is denied that I refused the letter. The claimant is clearly mentioning that the correspondence had been addressed to the property next door.

(iv) 7th May 2020: I confirm that I received the claimant’s letter. As mentioned before, I replied to the Claimant straight away advising that I did not receive the first letter and I attached the HPI and receipt of purchase. It is denied that I said to the Claimant that I bought the car as part exchange or from a dealer. My advice was that I purchased the car from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied that I advised on 7th March it was purchased from a friend.

(D) The Claimant’s evidence

8. I do not agree with the following evidence relied on by the Claimant

(i) It is denied that the letter send 17th March was refused by me. The claimant is clearly stating that the he had sent the letter to the property next door

(ii) The Copart advert for Lot (33801297) states the sale date Tue. Aug 08, 2017. Prior being in my possession the vehicle had successfully passed
MOT’s and a HPI check done by me (the defendant) on 20th June 2019. Neither of these mention any advisories and the HPI check clearly states no issues uncovered. I would also like to mention that this was the first time I was made aware the car had previously been written off.

(iii) It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied I advised the car was purchased from a friend.

[des8]

Nope, i hadn't seen those pictures, but I would still leave out those phrases.
It does seem that there has been innocent misrepresentation, following which the court could award damages OR cancellation of the contract.

I typed the above last night, and just seen it never posted...been having problems as has Rab1

Agreed claimant hasn't pleaded misrepresentation directly, but small claims court & LIPs and possibly unpredictable judge.......

[R0b]

I guess it's up to the OP to decide whether to include the references to having no knowledge and the misrep argument. That said, I don't think it would do any harm for them to be removed.

[McAdam]

Thank you both again for your help and effort! I had a sinking feeling when I received the letter but with your advice and guidance I feel better about the whole situation. I'm really hoping for all this to be over as soon as possible.

Thank you Rob for updating the defence. It definitely sound way better thank what I had come up with.
Would you also suggest adding a statement of truth to it?

As you know the deadline for my reply is 14th June. Would you advise sending the defence now?

[R0b]

If you have time, I would recommend you leave your defence for a couple f days, do something else and then come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes and read through it again, making sure you've captured everything and not missed anything out, update any typos or other errors etc. I wouldn't advocate sending your defence on the last day as things that might go wrong, tend to go wrong.

Why don't you spend the weekend leaving your defence alone and then Sunday or Monday you do a final run through before submitting.

[McAdam]

Hi guys,

R0b I actually took your advice and took my eyes of the claim for a couple of days. I went over it this morning and I think I am ready to submit it.
I added the statement of truth to it and checked all the typos.

I took des8 advice and left out the phrases regarding the accident.


Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

1. Rule 16.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) requires the Claimant to provide a concise statement of facts and the legal consequences that flow from those facts, so as to understand the case pleaded against me. The reasons for the claim, as currently drafted, consist merely of assertions and are in adequate for the purposes of compliance with CPR 16.4.

2. So far as I am able to understand, the reasons for the claim suggest that the Claimant has pleaded that the car (1) was not as described and (2) it was not fit for purpose. This defence will therefore address those two allegations only. Should the Claimant seek to introduce new allegations at a later stage, I will object and ask the court to reject any attempts to do so on the basis that the allegations have not been pleaded.

(A) Car not fit for purpose

3. The Claimant has failed to explain in sufficient detail how or why he believes that the car is not fit for purpose. Nonetheless, it is denied that the car at the time of sale was not fit for its intended purpose and in fact, the car was in a roadworthy condition. This is because:
(i) The car had been inspected and road-tested by the Claimant prior to being purchased.
(ii) The vehicle had successfully passed its MOT in the past two years.
(iii) I have driven the car on a daily basis without any issues.
(iv) In any event, the principle caveat emptor applies.

(B) Car not as described

4. I do not accept that the car was mis-described. The Claimant suggests that the car has previously been in an accident, but I fail to see the relevance of what that has to do with the car’s mileage. The mileage stated on the advert was taken directly from the odometer. Furthermore, I have checked vehicle’s MOT history on https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/ which confirms that the last recorded mileage was 42,704 miles (with the rest of the mileage being accrued whilst in my possession). In addition to this, the HPI check that I done prior purchasing the car stated no mileage issues. The Claimant is required to prove by way of expert evidence that the vehicle has not been driven 48,000 miles as described.

5. It does not automatically follow that because the vehicle may have been in accident - that the vehicle did not accrue the mileage as stated on the advert. The Claimant is required to prove the causal link between the car having been in an accident and the stated mileage.

6. The Claimant also states that I told him that I purchased the car from the dealer as a part exchange. This is not true. I did, however, say that the car was purchased from someone who obtained it in a part exchange for his older car which is not the same thing as alleged by the Claimant.

(C) The Claimant’s timeline of events

7. I do not accept the Claimant’s timeline of events, in particular:

(i) 26.02 - 7.3.2020: It is admitted that I advised the claimant the timing chain may need tightening or replacing. I cannot comment on what their mechanic and auto electrician may have advised. I have no connection with the motor trade and don’t possess any specialist knowledge of vehicles. I would also like to bring to the court's attention that the Claimant is disingenuous because on the date he sent me a text message requesting £150 refund towards repairing the timing chain and yet in the claim it clearly states the timing chain was not an issue.

(ii) 7th March: It is denied that I advised the claimant he should sell the car on. It is also denied I advised that I purchased the car from a friend and it is also denied that my profile on Facebook was removed. My Facebook profile is active and it was throughout all this time. I would also like to mention that during this time I was always replying to all of the claimant’s messages and phone calls.

(iii) 17th March: It is denied that I refused the letter. The claimant is clearly mentioning that the correspondence had been addressed to the property next door.

(iv) 7th May 2020: I confirm that I received the claimant’s letter. As mentioned before, I replied to the Claimant straight away advising that I did not receive the first letter and I attached the HPI and receipt of purchase. It is denied that I said to the Claimant that I bought the car as part exchange or from a dealer. My advice was that I purchased the car from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied that I advised on 7th March it was purchased from a friend.

(D) The Claimant’s evidence

8. I do not agree with the following evidence relied on by the Claimant

(i) It is denied that the letter send 17th March was refused by me. The claimant is clearly stating that the he had sent the letter to the property next door

(ii) The Copart advert for Lot (33801297) states the sale date Tue. Aug 08, 2017. Prior being in my possession the vehicle had successfully passed MOT’s and a HPI check done by me (the defendant) on 20th June 2019. Neither of these mention any advisories and the HPI check clearly states no issues uncovered.

(iii) It is denied I advised that I purchased the vehicle from a dealer as a part ex. My advice to the claimant was that the car was purchased from someone on Facebook Marketplace and that the previous owner obtained the vehicle by part exchanging their old car. It is also denied I advised the car was purchased from a friend.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.