Court Claim

nosferatu1001

File 14 days before AND file the electronic bundle as directed. 

Johnersh

Service purely in electronic form is fine, but do it early. That way you can call to check they have it and have been able to access it.

Sending duplicate paper copies helps no-one, esp during c-19. The courts *hate* it. 

With the claimant there is no harm in contacting them similarly solely for the purposes of checking they're happy to receive it by emsil as nd that they've received it. 

Coupon-mad

#10 has a typo in the date: Consumer Rights Act 2010 

#21 makes no sense because all the paragraphs above it are about out-of-date stuff like the Caernarfon case.  You need to base your WS on the example in the NEWBIES thread, not this old one you used.

Fruitcake

Pickle20 said:

Fruitcake said:

Have you received the scammer's WS and exhibits? Please post them here if/when you have them. Please only redact YOUR personal data.

You could add to points 6 - 9 that this may breach the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 because you had a life threatening and debilitating medical condition, only rectified by correctional surgery and subsequent convalescence.

Do you have any exhibits to include such as images of signs?

I can't see anywhere that you have challenged landowner authority and their failure to prove they authority to issue charges and court claims.

Thanks for the support, yes i have received it but due to being so poorly and in self isolation, i can't get to a proper scanner but i've tried to do it with a mobile scanner; as soon as i can, i'll update this.
i also have images to include as exhibits

You don't appear to have included the scammers exhibits. Especially important is the scammers alleged contract with the landowner as referred to in their WS as GSL1.

Pickle20

Coupon-mad said:

#10 has a typo in the date: Consumer Rights Act 2010 

#21 makes no sense because all the paragraphs above it are about out-of-date stuff like the Caernarfon case.  You need to base your WS on the example in the NEWBIES thread, not this old one you used.

Thanks a lot, i'll review this

Pickle20

Please can you have a look at the adjustments i have made to my WS following the guidance in the newbies thread|. Thanks a lot for the support.

Ferrybird

In paragraph 3 you state that you were there with your partner. I'm not sure whether you mean this in the business or romantic sense, but why was your partner not able to move the car when you became unwell? Did they not drive you home or can they not drive? A Judge or the PPC may pick up on this.

In 7 when you say you were "assisted away" - how? Were you collected by an ambulance? Were you so sick a friend had to come and collect you?

I suspect that you might be understating the seriousness of your medical condition as it sounds like your bleeding was significant enough to cause symptomatic anaemia (you say you were breathless, dizzy etc). From a sociological point of view your Judge is statistically more likely to be a male than female, and the chances are they will look at a reference to menstrual bleeding and think 1) "gross" and 2) "its just a period, what's all the fuss"...and not really get why this was so bad that you couldn't drive a car. There's a chance a lot of female Judges will think this too. Was this definitely menstrual bleeding made worse by fibroids or  a haemorrhage after a ruptured fibroid? 

Additionally, it sounds like you went home and within hours deteriorated to the point that you had to either attend A&E or were referred to a surgical assessment unit to have an emergency myomectomy. I also wonder whether you had a blood transfusion too (likely) given the symptoms of anaemia and the fact that you were operated on out of hours to try and stop the bleeding.  I think its important to impress upon the court the seriousness of your condition.

1505grandad

No para #13

Have you based the WS on the example as advised in the following post as per NEWBIES?:- (or have you missed out paras)

(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77614685/#Comment_77614685)

One instance is there is no mention of the Britannia v Semark-Jullien case which the claimant usually quote to try to justify the add-ons and backs up the Britannia Parking v Crosby Judgment you are using as evidence.

Coupon-mad

Yes, you can't start talking about the 'Salisbury case' if you haven't said which case it is.  Why are you not just copying the current recommended WS example and adapting it?  There is only ONE in the NEWBIES thread. and I wrote it to take account of the Salisbury Semark-Jullien case.

Pickle20

1505grandad said:

No para #13

Have you based the WS on the example as advised in the following post as per NEWBIES?:- (or have you missed out paras)

(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77614685/#Comment_77614685)

One instance is there is no mention of the Britannia v Semark-Jullien case which the claimant usually quote to try to justify the add-ons and backs up the Britannia Parking v Crosby Judgment you are using as evidence.

Thank you for the link, i have been looking at the old WS