I'm now being sued by the purchaser

bobobski

Marktheshark wrote: »

Obtain a sworn affidavit from a solicitor that the heating was working when the form was signed.

Yes, because solicitors love swearing things that are not within their knowledge. Or even things that are within their knowledge where they're not being paid to do so...

Doozergirl

bobobski wrote: »

Yes, because solicitors love swearing things that are not within their knowledge. Or even things that are within their knowledge where they're not being paid to do so...

It's the OP that does the swearing, not the solicitor witnessing it.

davidmcn

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's the OP that does the swearing, not the solicitor witnessing it.

Depends what mood the solicitor is in.

steampowered

bobobski wrote: »

Relevant only to Part 36 offers, no? My civil lit is fuzzy, but I thought that was the whole point of bringing in Part 36.

Well, if the offer was a PArt 36 offer or made 'without prejudice', yes. If ot was an open offer (which if it was made in a letter which wasn't marked 'without prejudice' then it would be admissable.

Hi, whether or not a settlement offer is made under Part 36 has no bearing on whether it is exempt from disclosure.

The point of making settlement offers under Part 36 is that you are automatically entitled to get your legal costs paid if you make a Part 36 offer and beat it (although Part 36 offers are not available in the small claims track).

All settlement offers are exempt from disclosure under the concept without prejudice privilege. Have a read of http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/without-prejudice-privilege/5053582.fullarticle if you need clarification.

I hope your paperwork was marked 'without prejudice'.

A clear settlement offer can't be used in evidence regardless of how it was labelled. It is good practice to mark settlement offers 'without prejudice' so that there is no doubt what you intend the letter to be, but it isn't mandatory.

bobobski

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's the OP that does the swearing, not the solicitor witnessing it.

Yes, and that wasn't clear from the poster I was quoting ("obtain a sworn affadavit from the solicitor") hence my post. But thank you for cutting through my sarcasm for anyone who didn't get it.

ikcdab

Thank you for the useful replies.
My defence contains a statement of truth which I will sign. Isn't that just as good as a sworn affidavit?
I also have a witness statement from my partner.

marksoton

ikcdab wrote: »

Thank you for the useful replies.
My defence contains a statement of truth which I will sign. Isn't that just as good as a sworn affidavit?
I also have a witness statement from my partner.

I honestly don't know why you're worrying yourself with this. Let the idiot take you to court and then just state facts.

In my experience the judiciary don't appreciate smart ar553s. And that's exactly what this chancer is trying.

david1951

ikcdab wrote: »

My defence contains a statement of truth which I will sign. Isn't that just as good as a sworn affidavit?

Yes because you can swear it in court.

ikcdab wrote: »

I also have a witness statement from my partner.

The witness statement must either be sworn using a solicitor (to become an affidavit) or she must attend court with you and stand as a witness (and swear it then).

Hoploz

Do we have a date for this court case yet? I'm thinking this thread could go on forever!

[Deleted User]

Ooops entered in error (will try reading a thread next time), apologies.