Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[des8]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

[ecalid]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

Thanks Des. Well I hope your neighbor knows who they're up against!

I think with the additional costs arguement, you are refering to the excel v wilkinson judgment? And the consumer rights act 2015 abuse of process arguement?

They had the claim struck out virtue of abuse of process by the claimant for unspecified costs.

Sorry but I couldn't see a link.

Ideally yesa judge would identify the signs were certainly not sufficient enough to form a contract, as a secondary arguement I would have liked to argue the structure of the terms possibly indicate that there are two contracts within the signage, and one destroys the other, also changing the sum specified and time for serving correspondence, rendering their correspondence unenforcable.

[des8]

Yes, you that's the case I referred to. Sorry, my link seems not to work, but you can access the case judgment via MSE
(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...20into%20doubt.)

If the signs are confusing, I don't think they necessarily cancel each other out
It may be better to argue that they should be construed in favour of the defendant (contra proferentem)