CEL 3 year old Ticket and CCBC

Le_Kirk

MRL170 wrote: »

Sorry this must be a newbie thing I am unsure which Post#14 is?

For example this is post # 22, scroll back up your thread and you will see top right hand corner of every post, a # Number

MRL170

Le_Kirk wrote: »

For example this is post # 22, scroll back up your thread and you will see top right hand corner of every post, a # Number

Thank you, its easy when you know

MRL170

Hi Everyone I have been reading through all the different defences and was after a bit of guidance as which one I should be going towards? Do you all think I should just ignore the actual circumstances and replicate one of these winning formulas? Sorry to be a pain as its all quite confusing as not sure which route I should start to head?

nosferatu1001

You need to read
Understand
And then decide for yourself.

MRL170

Sorry let me re phrase that. is it worth me trying a different approach at highlighting the fact their software and hardware can at any time and randomly (some times with no log of any error) produce a bug/ fault. Is this an avenue that's worth exploring? I have been in the software industry for 20 years and it doesn't matter how good you think your software is it will never be 100% accurate,

Le_Kirk

I suspect you will be breaking new ground (stand to be corrected by more experience regulars) and if so, yes, you could add it as a defence point but then when it comes to witness statement and EVIDENCE time, where is your evidence?

Coupon-mad

MRL170 wrote: »

Sorry let me re phrase that. is it worth me trying a different approach at highlighting the fact their software and hardware can at any time and randomly (some times with no log of any error) produce a bug/ fault. Is this an avenue that's worth exploring? I have been in the software industry for 20 years and it doesn't matter how good you think your software is it will never be 100% accurate,

Yes if you can evidence the likelihood of that from reliable sources.

MRL170

Hmmm without the cctv footage or a copy of the support desk tickets that is going to be very very hard to prove or disprove. Does they very fact they have a support desk prove this? The only other way would be to hire them for the office carpark and then make a case afterwards for future people to use!

nosferatu1001

You also cannot be your own expert, and it is highly unlikely you woudl be allowed to give any such evidence. Also its unlikely in the extreme a small claims track woudl be allowed an expert witness. So, unless you have an "in" with the claimants support desk, I would not touch it with a bargepole.

Having a support desk proves they have systems that need support. It obviously does not prove that their systems have a fault which can produce an error that beenfits them, and of course does not demonstrate on balance of proabbilities that this is what happened in YOUR individual case.

A defence isnt about coming up with whatever theory you can think of, they have to be reaosnable.
At best, if you try to force it down this route you may find yourself on the FAST track, not small claiums, and you will have absolutely zero costs protection.

Le_Kirk

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I would not touch it with a bargepole.

Not even our own Bargepole!!

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Having a support desk proves they have systems that need support.

Maybe the support desk is there so users can contact them and tell them how wonderful their system/software is!