We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
An example of TYPED defence and counterclaim
Tom231
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi,
I sent my defence for a section 8 possession claim a month ago and now the court is requesting that :
"I file and serve a TYPED defence and counterclaim..."
I would also like to know if the example below is the right format (justanswer (dot) com/uk-law/6828s-prepare-statement-defence-uk.html):
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. CF123
BETWEEN
YILMAZ HASSAN
Claimant/ Part 20 Defendant
and
PUSHPINDER PATEL
Defendant/Part 20 Claimant
DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENCE
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted.
2. As to Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits that the oral discussions occurred early in the New Year, but he is unable to admit or deny, but requires the Claimant to prove that they occurred on the 15th January. It is denied that the contract is a wholly written contract. It is denied that Paragraph 3 sets out the totality of the formation of the contract (‘the main contract’). Save as above, Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
3. On the 24th January 2006, following receipt of the Claimant’s letter of the 20th January 2006, and during a telephone conversation, the Defendant told the Claimant the following:-
a) the works of construction and refurbishment, (‘the works’) absolutely had to be started on the 6th March 2006;
b) the works absolutely had to be finished within 12 weeks of that date, that is Friday, 26th May 2006;
c) the Defendant was spending money on advertising an Opening night on the 27th May 2006;
d) the Defendant had a booking for a wedding on the 17th June 2006 and he wanted to be able to confirm that he could do that booking.
4. In respect of the matters raised in Paragraph 3 above, the Claimant stated that:-
a) the works would be finished by 26th May 2006;
b) the restaurant had to be cleared by 5th March 2006;
c) the works would begin promptly on the 6th March 2006;
d) the Defendant could confirm the booking for the wedding reception.
5. As a result of the assurances stated in Paragraph 4 above and acting in reliance upon them the Defendant agreed to the Claimant undertaking the works at the restaurant.
6. As such the following were express terms of the main contract:
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006 could be confirmed and would therefore take place.
7. In the alternative to paragraph 6 above and, if, which is denied, the main contract was a written contract, and as a result of the matters set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, a collateral contract came into existence between the Claimant and the Defendant, the consideration for which was the Defendant entering into the main contract in respect of the works.
8. The following were express terms of the collateral contract:-
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June could be
confirmed and would therefore take place.
9. As to Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim, and subject to the matters set out in Paragraphs 3 to 8 above, it is admitted that the terms set out were express terms of the main contract. As such and further, the following were express terms of the main contract:-
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006 could be confirmed and would therefore take place;
e) the floor to the new kitchen area to be laid to falls sloping towards a
central gulley running the length of the kitchen: - Clause 4.8 of the
specifications of The Ambrose Partnership.
10. Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. Further, the following was an implied term of the main and collateral contract:-
a) under section 4(2) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 the Claimant will supply materials of satisfactory quality;
b) under section 13 of The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
all work should be carried out with reasonable care and skill.
11. Paragraph 6 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendant commenced work on the 20th March 2006.
12. Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
13. Paragraph 8 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The works were completed on the 24th June 2006.
14. It is admitted that the Defendant has not paid the sum of £7,500 or any further sum to the Claimant. It is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant the sum of £7,500 or any sum. Except as above, the Defendant denies Paragraph 9 of the Particulars of Claim.
15. As to Paragraph 10 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits that the Claimant sent a letter dated 17th July 2006 requesting payment of the sum of £7500. It is denied that he is owed the sum or any sum by the Defendant.
16. It is admitted that the Defendant has not paid the sum of £7,500 or any sum. It is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant the sum of £7,500 or any sum. Except as above, Paragraph 11 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
17. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £7,500 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is so indebted in the sum of £7500, it is admitted that such a sum would be a qualifying debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and that statutory interest would be
payable at the rate of 12.75% from the 26th May 2006. Except as above, Paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
18. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £70 because the Defendant is not indebted to him in the sum of £7,500 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £7500, it is admitted that £70 would be payable by way of compensation under section 5A of The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Except as above, the Defendant denies Paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim.
19. Paragraph 14 and 15 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted. The additional
works were cosmetic and could only be fitted when the main contract works were completed. The main contract works were not completed by the 26th May 2006 but on the 24th June 2006.
20. Paragraph 16 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The additional works took
three men three hours to complete and were started and finished on the 24th June 2006.
21. Paragraph 17 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
22. As to Paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that a reasonable sum in respect of materials is £3200. It is denied that a reasonable sum in respect of labour is £2800. It is denied that a reasonable sum in respect of the additional works is £6000. A reasonable sum in respect of the labour charges is £750.
23. As to Paragraph 19 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that, by letter dated the 17th July 2006, the Claimant notified the Defendant of the sum of £6000 and requested payment. It is denied for the reasons set out in Paragraphs 2 to 13 above and Paragraphs 27 to 33 below that the Claimant is entitled to the sum or any sum.
24. It is admitted the Defendant has not paid the sum of £6000 or any sum. It is denied that the Defendant owes the sum of £6000 or any sum. Except as above, Paragraph 20 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
25. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is so indebted in the sum of £6000, it is admitted that such a sum would be a qualifying debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and that statutory interest would be payable at the rate of 12.75% on that sum from the 18th August 2006. Except as above, Paragraph 21 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
26. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £70 because the Defendant is nor indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000, it is admitted that £70 would be payable by way of compensation under section 5A of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Except as above, Paragraph 22 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
27. Under the main contract, the Defendant cleared the restaurant by the 5th March 2006.
28. The Claimant is in breach of the express terms of the main contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to commence work on the 6th March 2006;
b) failed to complete the works by the 26th May 2006;
c) caused the Defendant not to be able to fulfil the confirmed booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006. The restaurant could not reopen until the 25th June 2006;
d) failed to lay the floor to the new kitchen area to falls sloping towards a central gulley running the length of the kitchen contrary to Clause 4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership. The floor has been laid level causing liquids to not drain away and causing pooling of water on the floor.
29. The Claimant is in breach of the implied terms of the main contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to lay the floor to the new kitchen area to falls sloping towards a central gulley running the length of the kitchen contrary to Clause 4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership. The floor has been laid level causing liquids to not drain away and causing pooling of water on the floor;
b) plastered defectively or caused there to be defective plastering to the entire rear area of the restaurant;
c) supplied a defective rear door to the restaurant in that the same does not fit and the door frame is twisted and warped;
d) constructed or caused to be constructed a leaking flat roof to the roof area over storage rooms 1 and 2.
30. In the alternative to paragraph 28 above the Claimant is in breach of the express
terms of the collateral contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to commence work on the 6th March 2006;
b) failed to complete the works by the 26th May 2006;
c) caused the Defendant not to be able to fulfil the confirmed booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006. The restaurant could not re open until the 25th June 2006.
31. Further or alternatively, if contrary to this Defence the Defendant is held liable to the Claimant, he will seek to extinguish or reduce the Claimant’s claim by setting off the sums counterclaimed below.
COUNTERCLAIM
32. Paragraphs 1 to 31 above are repeated.
33. As a result of the matters set out above, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage.
PARTICULARS
a) loss of profit from 26th May 2006 to 24th June 2006
4 weeks @ £700 net per week £2800
b) cost of advertising opening night on 27th May 2006 £500
c) loss of net profit on cancelled wedding reception £600
d) cost of remedying defective work:-
i) breaking up and relaying the kitchen floor as per Clause
4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership;
ii) hacking off defective plasterwork and renewing in 2
layers to the entire rear area of the restaurant;
iii) supplying replacement door and frame in hard wood;
iv) renewing and re-felting the entire flat roof area over
storage rooms 1 and 2 and making good. £10,000
e) loss of profit of 2 weeks when undertaking the remedial
work. 2 weeks @£700 net per week £1400
TOTAL £15,300
34. Further, the Defendant claims interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit and at the rate of 8% on the following:-
a) on the sum of £2800, from the 10th June 2006 to the (please insert date of issue of claim form), amounting to (please insert sum) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate);
b) on the sum of £500 from the (please insert date when this was paid) to the (please insert date of issue of the claim form) amounting to (please insert amount) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate);
c) on the sum of £600, from the (please insert date when this would have been paid) to the (please insert date of issue of the claim form) amounting to (please insert amount) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate).
AND the Defendant counterclaims:-
1) £ 15,300.
2) (please insert total of all totals) interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 and continuing at the rate of (please insert total of all totals);
3) interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.
SIGNED BY THE PLEADER
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
DATED
I sent my defence for a section 8 possession claim a month ago and now the court is requesting that :
"I file and serve a TYPED defence and counterclaim..."
I would also like to know if the example below is the right format (justanswer (dot) com/uk-law/6828s-prepare-statement-defence-uk.html):
IN THE CARDIFF COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. CF123
BETWEEN
YILMAZ HASSAN
Claimant/ Part 20 Defendant
and
PUSHPINDER PATEL
Defendant/Part 20 Claimant
DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENCE
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted.
2. As to Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits that the oral discussions occurred early in the New Year, but he is unable to admit or deny, but requires the Claimant to prove that they occurred on the 15th January. It is denied that the contract is a wholly written contract. It is denied that Paragraph 3 sets out the totality of the formation of the contract (‘the main contract’). Save as above, Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
3. On the 24th January 2006, following receipt of the Claimant’s letter of the 20th January 2006, and during a telephone conversation, the Defendant told the Claimant the following:-
a) the works of construction and refurbishment, (‘the works’) absolutely had to be started on the 6th March 2006;
b) the works absolutely had to be finished within 12 weeks of that date, that is Friday, 26th May 2006;
c) the Defendant was spending money on advertising an Opening night on the 27th May 2006;
d) the Defendant had a booking for a wedding on the 17th June 2006 and he wanted to be able to confirm that he could do that booking.
4. In respect of the matters raised in Paragraph 3 above, the Claimant stated that:-
a) the works would be finished by 26th May 2006;
b) the restaurant had to be cleared by 5th March 2006;
c) the works would begin promptly on the 6th March 2006;
d) the Defendant could confirm the booking for the wedding reception.
5. As a result of the assurances stated in Paragraph 4 above and acting in reliance upon them the Defendant agreed to the Claimant undertaking the works at the restaurant.
6. As such the following were express terms of the main contract:
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006 could be confirmed and would therefore take place.
7. In the alternative to paragraph 6 above and, if, which is denied, the main contract was a written contract, and as a result of the matters set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, a collateral contract came into existence between the Claimant and the Defendant, the consideration for which was the Defendant entering into the main contract in respect of the works.
8. The following were express terms of the collateral contract:-
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June could be
confirmed and would therefore take place.
9. As to Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim, and subject to the matters set out in Paragraphs 3 to 8 above, it is admitted that the terms set out were express terms of the main contract. As such and further, the following were express terms of the main contract:-
a) the restaurant would be cleared in readiness for the commencement of the works by the 5th March 2006;
b) the works would commence on the 6th March 2006;
c) the works would be finished by the 26th March 2006;
d) the booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006 could be confirmed and would therefore take place;
e) the floor to the new kitchen area to be laid to falls sloping towards a
central gulley running the length of the kitchen: - Clause 4.8 of the
specifications of The Ambrose Partnership.
10. Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. Further, the following was an implied term of the main and collateral contract:-
a) under section 4(2) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 the Claimant will supply materials of satisfactory quality;
b) under section 13 of The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
all work should be carried out with reasonable care and skill.
11. Paragraph 6 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendant commenced work on the 20th March 2006.
12. Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
13. Paragraph 8 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The works were completed on the 24th June 2006.
14. It is admitted that the Defendant has not paid the sum of £7,500 or any further sum to the Claimant. It is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant the sum of £7,500 or any sum. Except as above, the Defendant denies Paragraph 9 of the Particulars of Claim.
15. As to Paragraph 10 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant admits that the Claimant sent a letter dated 17th July 2006 requesting payment of the sum of £7500. It is denied that he is owed the sum or any sum by the Defendant.
16. It is admitted that the Defendant has not paid the sum of £7,500 or any sum. It is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant the sum of £7,500 or any sum. Except as above, Paragraph 11 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
17. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £7,500 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is so indebted in the sum of £7500, it is admitted that such a sum would be a qualifying debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and that statutory interest would be
payable at the rate of 12.75% from the 26th May 2006. Except as above, Paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
18. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £70 because the Defendant is not indebted to him in the sum of £7,500 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £7500, it is admitted that £70 would be payable by way of compensation under section 5A of The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Except as above, the Defendant denies Paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim.
19. Paragraph 14 and 15 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted. The additional
works were cosmetic and could only be fitted when the main contract works were completed. The main contract works were not completed by the 26th May 2006 but on the 24th June 2006.
20. Paragraph 16 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The additional works took
three men three hours to complete and were started and finished on the 24th June 2006.
21. Paragraph 17 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.
22. As to Paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that a reasonable sum in respect of materials is £3200. It is denied that a reasonable sum in respect of labour is £2800. It is denied that a reasonable sum in respect of the additional works is £6000. A reasonable sum in respect of the labour charges is £750.
23. As to Paragraph 19 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that, by letter dated the 17th July 2006, the Claimant notified the Defendant of the sum of £6000 and requested payment. It is denied for the reasons set out in Paragraphs 2 to 13 above and Paragraphs 27 to 33 below that the Claimant is entitled to the sum or any sum.
24. It is admitted the Defendant has not paid the sum of £6000 or any sum. It is denied that the Defendant owes the sum of £6000 or any sum. Except as above, Paragraph 20 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
25. It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is so indebted in the sum of £6000, it is admitted that such a sum would be a qualifying debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and that statutory interest would be payable at the rate of 12.75% on that sum from the 18th August 2006. Except as above, Paragraph 21 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
26. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £70 because the Defendant is nor indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000 or any sum. If, which is denied, he is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of £6000, it is admitted that £70 would be payable by way of compensation under section 5A of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Except as above, Paragraph 22 of the Particulars of Claim is denied.
27. Under the main contract, the Defendant cleared the restaurant by the 5th March 2006.
28. The Claimant is in breach of the express terms of the main contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to commence work on the 6th March 2006;
b) failed to complete the works by the 26th May 2006;
c) caused the Defendant not to be able to fulfil the confirmed booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006. The restaurant could not reopen until the 25th June 2006;
d) failed to lay the floor to the new kitchen area to falls sloping towards a central gulley running the length of the kitchen contrary to Clause 4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership. The floor has been laid level causing liquids to not drain away and causing pooling of water on the floor.
29. The Claimant is in breach of the implied terms of the main contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to lay the floor to the new kitchen area to falls sloping towards a central gulley running the length of the kitchen contrary to Clause 4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership. The floor has been laid level causing liquids to not drain away and causing pooling of water on the floor;
b) plastered defectively or caused there to be defective plastering to the entire rear area of the restaurant;
c) supplied a defective rear door to the restaurant in that the same does not fit and the door frame is twisted and warped;
d) constructed or caused to be constructed a leaking flat roof to the roof area over storage rooms 1 and 2.
30. In the alternative to paragraph 28 above the Claimant is in breach of the express
terms of the collateral contract.
PARTICULARS
The Claimant is in breach in that he:-
a) failed to commence work on the 6th March 2006;
b) failed to complete the works by the 26th May 2006;
c) caused the Defendant not to be able to fulfil the confirmed booking for the wedding reception on the 17th June 2006. The restaurant could not re open until the 25th June 2006.
31. Further or alternatively, if contrary to this Defence the Defendant is held liable to the Claimant, he will seek to extinguish or reduce the Claimant’s claim by setting off the sums counterclaimed below.
COUNTERCLAIM
32. Paragraphs 1 to 31 above are repeated.
33. As a result of the matters set out above, the Defendant has suffered loss and damage.
PARTICULARS
a) loss of profit from 26th May 2006 to 24th June 2006
4 weeks @ £700 net per week £2800
b) cost of advertising opening night on 27th May 2006 £500
c) loss of net profit on cancelled wedding reception £600
d) cost of remedying defective work:-
i) breaking up and relaying the kitchen floor as per Clause
4.8 of the specifications of The Ambrose Partnership;
ii) hacking off defective plasterwork and renewing in 2
layers to the entire rear area of the restaurant;
iii) supplying replacement door and frame in hard wood;
iv) renewing and re-felting the entire flat roof area over
storage rooms 1 and 2 and making good. £10,000
e) loss of profit of 2 weeks when undertaking the remedial
work. 2 weeks @£700 net per week £1400
TOTAL £15,300
34. Further, the Defendant claims interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 at such rate and for such period as the court thinks fit and at the rate of 8% on the following:-
a) on the sum of £2800, from the 10th June 2006 to the (please insert date of issue of claim form), amounting to (please insert sum) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate);
b) on the sum of £500 from the (please insert date when this was paid) to the (please insert date of issue of the claim form) amounting to (please insert amount) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate);
c) on the sum of £600, from the (please insert date when this would have been paid) to the (please insert date of issue of the claim form) amounting to (please insert amount) and continuing at the daily rate of (please insert daily rate).
AND the Defendant counterclaims:-
1) £ 15,300.
2) (please insert total of all totals) interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 and continuing at the rate of (please insert total of all totals);
3) interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.
SIGNED BY THE PLEADER
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
DATED
0
Comments
-
Probably OK.
The claim against you was probably set out in paragraphs.
In your defence you need to set out what you agree with, what you disagree with, and why you disagree. If you look at what you've posted above, then you'll see it split down.
I'm not so sure about a counterclaim - will depend on the facts of your case.
Have a look at the claim document to see whether single spacing or 1.5 spacing has been used.
Look at the top of the claim document for a heading, but the most important things to set out are:
Which county court
Names of Claimant and Respondent / Defendant
Case reference number (should be on correspondence from the court).
CAB should be able to help too.0 -
Thanks for your help.
I have to send it back to the court by tuesday while there is not place available in my local CAB before three weeks.
Can I add a witness statement to support my counterclaim?0 -
I don't know - never done anything in the county court.0
-
Take the names off the original post.., you might as well send the form directly to the other party plus I'm sure it breaches data protection.
I'd advise seeing a solicitor on Monday.., but really you should have done this earlier. Given the sums talked about, surely it would be worth paying for an hour of a solicitor's time?
If you include a witness statement, you are safest making sure they are willing to appear in court. It depends on the Judge.., but sometimes they like to be able to question a witness. As might the other party. If the witness isn't present, the statement could be thrown out.0 -
With all due respect to previous posters, I think you need professional advice on this. The format in your OP which you have copied from the online lawyer's reply at justanswer.com is a year old and may not still be extant.Mornië utulië0
-
Thanks for your help.
I have to send it back to the court by tuesday while there is not place available in my local CAB before three weeks.
Can I add a witness statement to support my counterclaim?
The format is basically ok, couple of minor procedure errors on which are not show stoppers.
Apart from the statement of truth, that needs to be in the correct format as per CPR or otherwise it can be made inadmissible.
Any chance of the background to the case and could you type up the particulars of claim verbatim less any identifying information.0 -
Lord_Baltimore wrote: »With all due respect to previous posters, I think you need professional advice on this. The format in your OP which you have copied from the online lawyer's reply at justanswer.com is a year old and may not still be extant.
It depends on how much they are claiming, according to that counterclaim then yes they need professional advice.
OP, do you have realistic counterclaim ?
it's a serious questions, in a counterclaim it's tempting to pluck figures out of the air and hit back at the other party. But unless you have a realistic chance of winning you need to think seriously about your counterclaim amounts or otherwise you could be looking at some hefty costs.
Even if the claimant fail to wins, but also if you also fail to win your counterclaim as well.0 -
It depends on how much they are claiming, according to that counterclaim then yes they need professional advice.
OP, do you have realistic counterclaim ?
it's a serious questions, in a counterclaim it's tempting to pluck figures out of the air and hit back at the other party. But unless you have a realistic chance of winning you need to think seriously about your counterclaim amounts or otherwise you could be looking at some hefty costs.
Even if the claimant fail to wins, but also if you also fail to win your counterclaim as well.
Mainly, my counterclaim is for disrepairs and presently I am under JSA.0 -
Mainly, my counterclaim is for disrepairs and presently I am under JSA.
Tread carefully. What exactly is your circumstance? People here may be able to give you some information. If it's a S8 for arrears and you are in 2+ months of arrears then a lack of repairs is not going to save you from eviction, nor is being on JSA.
What has your landlord claimed, what are the grounds under which he is requesting possession?0 -
The landlord is requesting possession for one month arrears and previous delay in payments. I was talking about my JSA regarding the court cost.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.9K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.3K Life & Family
- 255.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards