MCOL Small Claim and DQ

[Amethyst]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

Getting there thanks [MENTION=104499]jaguarsuk[/MENTION]. How's this?


REPLY TO DEFENSE


1. The Claimant replies to the Defence filed by the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxx 2017.

2. Paragraph 1 of the Defence is denied.

a) The application instructions provided by the Defendant were followed by the Claimant. This is evidenced by the successful application of;
i) a previous order for transfers from the Defendant that I applied to another model following the instructions. A photograph of this model was subsequently displayed on the Defendant's Facebook page and serves as evidence the process was followed correctly.
ii) a replacement set of transfers received from the Defendant in response to a previous complaint were applied following the same process.
iii) The Defendant suggested an alternative method of applying the transfer which was tried by the Claimant, but which also failed. This shows the fault was due to the quality of the products supplied.


2: Paragraph 2 of the Defence is denied.
a) The claim is for reimbursement for the cost of 12 crest transfers that were faulty.
i)The original order was for ;
LIST THE ORDER
ii) The Defendant provided a quotation;
LIST THE QUOTE .
This shows the total cost for the order of which 12 crests was £80 and it is this amount that is being claimed.
iii) The quotation was accepted and the order placed and paid in full in August 2012.
iv) The additional £12 claimed is for costs incurred for the expense of two recorded delivery letters to try to bring about a resolution.

3. The Defendant has admitted there was an issue with the products supplied in an email received in October 2015.

4. The order was initially partially fulfilled in Jan 2015, general enquiries about progress were made over 5 months and the claims made in paragraph 4 of the Defence are therefore denied.

5. The defendants issue in paragraph 3 about his normal charge is irrelevant. A requirement was provided, a quote was received and the quotation accepted and paid for in full.

6. The original basis for the repeat order was that they would be of the same quality as the transfers the claimant had previously acquired and applied from the Defendant. For this reason alone, the claimant did not initially test the new order and at no time did the defendant make the claimant aware that different materials had been used during the production process.

7. The transfers were kept in their original delivery box, in their original sealed plastic bag and in a stable temperature out of any sunlight in line with the defendant’s storage instructions. For this reason, the defendant’s claims in his final paragraph are denied.

8. The claimant provided extensive evidence to the Defendant by email, and following discussion, returned the product to the Defendant for testing in 11th November 2015.

9. Partial replacements were received from the Defendant in June 2016.

10. It is the Claimants case that the defendant is in beach of the Consumers Rights Act 2015 and also the Sale of Goods Act as it is now three years since the order was placed and the goods provided are not of a satisfactory quality.

11. I respectfully request that the defence be struck out and judgment awarded to the Claimant.

12. I also respectfully request that costs of and occasioned in the dealing of this matter be awarded to me as the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I, xxxxxxxxx believe that the facts stated in this reply to Defence are true


Signed ………………………………………………………….. Date …………………………

[Amethyst]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

Thanks for this. I agree that four pages of txt probably wouldn't be read in detail. The why's and wherefore tell the whole story which as you say is probably better for later so your revised edition keeping it to one page with short sentences wil have more effect.
DO people normally send these to both the court and defendant by recorded delivery just to make sure it arrives?

It is advised to use recorded delivery yes, and yes copies should go to the court AND the claimant each with the copies of the N180 directions questionnaire.

[jaguarsuk]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

I'd say [MENTION=105232]IronRoad[/MENTION] that's the one to use from [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION]

Good luck

[IronRoad]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

Thanks to you both. Couldn't have made it this far without your knowledge. Regards

[IronRoad]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

So interesting follow up question. What classes as 'served' in the sense that the DQ and reply has been sent by guaranteed next day delivery with signature to both the court and the defendant. The court signs for theirs and status is delivered so job done on that one Howevere Royal Mail has tried to deliver the defendsnt's but couldn't so have left a 'while you were out' card with instructions on what the addressee should do. Does that class as 'served'?

[jaguarsuk]

Re: MCOL Small Claim and DQ

So interesting follow up question. What classes as 'served' in the sense that the DQ and reply has been sent by guaranteed next day delivery with signature to both the court and the defendant. The court signs for theirs and status is delivered so job done on that one Howevere Royal Mail has tried to deliver the defendsnt's but couldn't so have left a 'while you were out' card with instructions on what the addressee should do. Does that class as 'served'?

You're not under obligation to show it was received, just that you sent them. If you had posted first class and got a proof of posting it would be assumed that 5 days after the proof of posting date the other party had been served.

When I send documents I usually try to put them in something that looks like a parcel if I want a signature for proof of delivery, that way the postie puts "parcel" on the slip not "letter." The other party might expect you to send recorded letter, so avoid collecting it if delivery fails. They won't expect a parcel and who doesn't collect a parcel when they receive one to see what's been sent to them?