Query on Small Claims Procedure and content of Particulars of Claim

[Squeaky]

I am currently compiling my Particulars of Claim, but they are coming out quite lengthy - currently six A4 pages.
I am trying to shorten them as they are particularly detailed, but scared of losing pertinent details along they way which I might depend on.

What is the Small Claims procedure in respect of this. i.e. Once I submit the N1, do I get a chance to submit all the details at some point?
NB: I am assuming this will be defended - as the DEFENDANT is already saying see you in court following my Letter before Claim.

The nature of the claim is not fit for purpose and not as descibed goods.
It is a vehicle that failed the day after collection and then again 1 week later.
The DEFENDANT is trying to blame me for the 2nd failure but I have evidence to the contrary.
Also, the number of defects found in the interim period mean the advertised description was far correct.
Note: Sale was over the phone, no inspection except when collecting.

I'm citing under SOGA. I have considered including aspects of MA 1967, there are grounds for both negligent and innocent misrepresentation with this but am worried it will limit my claim to refund only (vs. recovering damages for incurred costs).

Also regards the Small Claims procedure, I am targetting my claim to a limit of £10,000 in order to get small claims track, rather than fast track and protect against costs on the off-chance it does not go my way.
Does this £10,000 limit consist of all the claim (refund+damages+interest+costs) or everything but costs or everything but costs and interest?

Thanks,
Squeaky.

[enquirer]

Re: Query on Small Claims Procedure and content of Particulars of Claim

Include as much detail as is necessary to prove your case. Keep it relevent and aim for a clear, crisp style. Attach copies of all documents on which you are relying and cross reference them.

Costs are in addition.

[Squeaky]

Re: Query on Small Claims Procedure and content of Particulars of Claim

Thanks Enquirer. I am busy redrafting to take the waffle out.

Another question. Part of my claim pertains to my rejection of the vehicle. It was returned to the DEFENDANT (motor dealer, not private) at which point they claimed damage by me using an independant report. But, they performed repairs at the point of their inspection before making the allegation of damage, thus rendering any inspection, etc. impossible by me.

I am looking for a piece of legislation or case law precedent that states that their actions in repairing without prior consultation to me means that they have effecively accepted the vehicle return and/or by performing said repairs made it impossible for me to establish a defence. i.e. they have destroyed the eveidence with their repair actions.

I did find something supporting this, but lost the reference due to a browser crash. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[enquirer]

Re: Query on Small Claims Procedure and content of Particulars of Claim

Why did they repair it? Was it in expectation that once repaired you would continue with it? If not, then that implies that they have accepted it back. Did you state that you were rejecting the vehicle?

The DEFENDANT is trying to blame me for the 2nd failure but I have evidence to the contrary. Also, the number of defects found in the interim period mean the advertised description was far correct.

What evidence? Can you prove this?

[Squeaky]

Re: Query on Small Claims Procedure and content of Particulars of Claim

The car failed to start the day after collection, later identified as corroded wiring. Repair by local garage (under dealer authorisation) was allowed and the car returned 1 week later. (NB garage wanted to do full wiring harness replacement, dealer had them clean the connections).
It then failed 1 week later whilst being driven and would not start again, as per previous failure.
The garage refused to touch it without instruction. The dealer was informed and he promised to sort it, whatever the cost.
The dealer then failed to instruct the local garage and the car was left on a public highway overnight.
I took legal advice via a helpline number I had access to and was told to reject the car under SOGA.
The car was rejected, verbally initially then backed up in writing and reminded a number of times in subsequent correspondence.
The dealer requested that I arrange it be transported back (NB it was immobile, so this was by contracted trailer transport).
After some time of promising money but claiming cashflow problems, they stopped responding.
I tried to raise a section 75 claim with the CC company. They got a response from the dealer, but said he had proven to them that I had caused the second failure so they were bowing out, although they have left the CC charge frozen pending resolution.
I wrote to him and he repsonded alleging that I had driven through deep water causing it to go through the intercooler and into the turbo.
I ask for a copy of the report and eventually he sent one which said the car had been driven through deep water causing water to enter the air intake, soaking the filter and that the control module and connector were wet.
It went on to say that they had dried it out / replaced the air filter and that the dealer drove it away. That it then failed again due turbo being seized and that it was freed by spray redex into it and the car returned to the dealer.
I have collated some evidence to show where I was when the failure occured (major well maintained A-road), along with detailed weather reports which show no rain for previous 2 days and only 2.5mm of rain starting to fall at time of failure.
The dealer then claimed he was only accepting the vehicle back on condition that it was a continuance/repeat of the first failure and that because the second failure was different he is no longer accepting it back. He had offered refund minus cost of use and cost of second repairs - which I rejected and counter offered. He went quiet again so I sent a letter before claim. He rejected in a letter wrote entirely "without prejudice" and tried to add storage charges which I have said I have no repsonsibility for.

No doubts over my rejection of the car and it can be shown that he did accept to a point. His repair actions were done without any correspondence with me.

Regards the defects found, his description in the advert (which I have a copy of) that the car was "totally as new throughout", this was backed up by him over the phone by his describing the car the same and reading through the documentation present with the car. I bought, at distance, on the basis of this advert and description.
There is a damaged near-side wing mirror. Its very discretely held together with a small cable tie, but will not function electrically (fold and adjust). Afterwards, I found an MOT advisory (in duplicate) listing the damaged wing mirror which was convieniently skipped over by the dealer on the phone.
On collection, he told me that a tyre pressure monitoring light had just come on, but was probably just sensor error requiring reset. Fair enough, I had this on another car. Turned out to be a missing valve on the TPM system, as advised by company who did first repair - so will have been present all the time (not just come on).
He has admitted these two defects now.
Other defects mostly and suspiciously concern the front near side. (e.g. misaligned headlight, bubble corrosion on front corner of bonnet.) He will not take any responsibility for these. I'm suspecting previous accident damage as the primary site of corroded wiring is also near side.
I have photographs of all these defects. If the main problem had been sorted without further incident, I would have just pushed to get them fixed, but the location and nature are all pointing to something more sinister.

Further, the front towing eye failed during first recovery due to corroded threads on the towing socket.
He has went from saying at sale time that it is a perfect car which should be expected for its young age and mileage, to the inverse of it is already 3 years old and done 30k, so I should expected all these things!

On another note, I wrote to the previous keeper for some history. They have just responded to say that whilst they don't want to become embroilled because they sold the car in good-faith, they will answer my questions as long as they can supply the dealer with a copy of the answers! They don't say if it is the dealer they sold the car to or to the dealer I am dealing with - I don't know if they are the same dealer (though I suspect not). I am going to ask for that info because I think there is a story on this car.