Now at Mediation

nosferatu1001

For reference this is the defence the OP entered and expected us to rescue for them:
"Part of the said road in question of where alledged offence occured, has not been accesible to the public since January 2018,
and continues to remain closed, and access is only possible via a manned security gate, due to the said road forming part of a
building site. As an engineer working on the site carrying out vital emergency electrical repairs, I was allowed through the
security gate, therefore did not enter into any contract via any sineage.
"

Coupon-mad

nosferatu1001 said:

For reference this is the defence the OP entered and expected us to rescue for them:
"Part of the said road in question of where alledged offence occured, has not been accesible to the public since January 2018,
and continues to remain closed, and access is only possible via a manned security gate, due to the said road forming part of a
building site. As an engineer working on the site carrying out vital emergency electrical repairs, I was allowed through the
security gate, therefore did not enter into any contract via any sineage."

An interesting reminder.  This wasn't a forum-assisted defence case, I recall now, it was an attempt to rescue it.  

Sad to see that our rescue attempt didn't work but cases like this have never counted towards the forum win rate - they can't.  This wasn't a forum defence. The defence is the most important document.  To try to rescue a case after that was all that was in the defence, was always a huge ask. 

Some Judges would have been more favourable towards a consumer who attended the hearing when the Claimant didn't but if not, then the above defence was all the OP had to hang their hat on and quite possibly the Judge wouldn't allow the extra arguments shoe-horned into the WS.   Worth a try as the OP was already looking at £270-odd and nothing we advised could have changed that, except to offer the chance of winning the case and paying nothing.