Missed "Letter Before Court Action" - Please help!

_blueberry_

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

For sure, I will post an update on here after the hearing.

_blueberry_

Hi all - just to let you know I literally just got out of the CVP session and wanted to update everybody here as you were all so helpful.

The case was struck out over the POC and my inability to defend myself.  The claimant argued that there was information in earlier letters but when pressed for evidence showing any information relating to the "kiosk" they failed.  They also tried to argue that being there for 10 minutes was sufficient to suggest that I had broken the terms as I had left the site.  I responded that even at this late stage, the claimant is not able to make their mind up about whether the term broken was the kiosk or leaving the site.  If the POC had had this information we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I pressed for getting my costs in full and awarded £500.  I am not sure if this is a good amount but the judge mentioned that it was clear that the witness statement was very well put together and time had been spent on it.  She also thought that I may have a legal background - for that I only have this forum to thank.

P.S. for those that were curious about the "silver bullet" - this was that the claimant had put the kiosk log for the wrong date into their witness statement.  I raised this during the "costing" conversation to mention how unreasonably they had behaved - not sure if it had an impact. 

Coupon-mad

Yay - you did it and with bells on!

They also tried to argue that being there for 10 minutes was sufficient to suggest that I had broken the terms as I had left the site.

I responded that even at this late stage, the claimant is not able to make their mind up about whether the term broken was the kiosk or leaving the site.

If the POC had had this information we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I pressed for getting my costs in full and awarded £500.  I am not sure if this is a good amount.

It is the highest I can recall in 2023.  Not too shabby!  You also argued the bit I've bolded so well!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Did the Judge mention CEL v Chan in the summing up of reasons?

Which Judge?

And which Court please, we want to know how well known the Chan case is becoming.

_blueberry_

All credit to you @Coupon-mad!

I got the feeling the judge wasn't hugely familiar with CEL vs Chan case - but I couldn't be sure.  She asked me to confirm if it was in my WS and scrolled through to find it so I guess she didn't have it to memory.  I do not recall whether or not she mentioned the case during her summary.  Will I get a written judgement at some point?

The judge also mentioned it being helpful to have all the other POC cases on the WS so that certainly seemed to sway her - would be good to make sure all the other WS have multiple.

It was DDJ Khan, Willesden County Court.

The claimant (obviously) certainly knew the case and the template "limited space" argument - but the argument that slightly threw me off was that the previous letters mentioned it (which I had to quickly flick through to check that it had not been mentioned).  Might be worth making sure other defendents check their previous letters as it felt like that could have swayed the judge to let the hearing go on.

Coupon-mad

The judge also mentioned it being helpful to have all the other POC cases on the WS so that certainly seemed to sway her - would be good to make sure all the other WS have multiple.

Worth knowing. 

I'm using your WS as an exemplar anyway!

Le_Kirk

_blueberry_ said:

The claimant (obviously) certainly knew the case and the template "limited space" argument - but the argument that slightly threw me off was that the previous letters mentioned it (which I had to quickly flick through to check that it had not been mentioned).  Might be worth making sure other defendents check their previous letters as it felt like that could have swayed the judge to let the hearing go on.

But you are not defending against letters, you can only defend against the POC; I imagine that was a try on by claimant. 

_blueberry_

Sure, I guess I was out of my depth.  The judge mentioned that it was persuasive rather than binding which sounded like there was some leeway - she was asking the claimant for evidence relating to his assertion that I knew what I am defending against as it was in previous letters.  It would be helpful for others if the wording around the CEL vs Chan paragraphs on the WS were updated to avoid others being put on the spot during the hearing.

Based on how it was unfolding, I suspect the judge may well have allowed the hearing to go ahead if the claimant was able to prove that I was informed of the specific parts of the "contract" that were allegedly breached prior to the POC.

Worth mentioning that the judge also stated during her summary that she would have taken some convincing on the case itself by the claimant, having read my WS - again, this may have played a part in her final judgement.

We will never know!

Le_Kirk

The claimant cannot provide new evidence at the hearing (neither can you), although the system seems to give more leeway to claimants than defendants.  The claimants are supposed to put forward all of their case in their WS, not ambush the defendant at the hearing.What more could be said in the defence template than "if your POC are sparse use CEL v Chan"?  Your hearing will give posters some valuable guidance and we do suggest posters don't just stick to their own threads but do a bit of reading around.

BikingBud

_blueberry_ said:

Hi all - just to let you know I literally just got out of the CVP session and wanted to update everybody here as you were all so helpful.

The case was struck out over the POC and my inability to defend myself.  The claimant argued that there was information in earlier letters but when pressed for evidence showing any information relating to the "kiosk" they failed.  They also tried to argue that being there for 10 minutes was sufficient to suggest that I had broken the terms as I had left the site.  I responded that even at this late stage, the claimant is not able to make their mind up about whether the term broken was the kiosk or leaving the site.  If the POC had had this information we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I pressed for getting my costs in full and awarded £500.  I am not sure if this is a good amount but the judge mentioned that it was clear that the witness statement was very well put together and time had been spent on it.  She also thought that I may have a legal background - for that I only have this forum to thank.

P.S. for those that were curious about the "silver bullet" - this was that the claimant had put the kiosk log for the wrong date into their witness statement.  I raised this during the "costing" conversation to mention how unreasonably they had behaved - not sure if it had an impact. 

A monster win for Halloween.

Awesome!

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

The claimant cannot provide new evidence at the hearing (neither can you), although the system seems to give more leeway to claimants than defendants.  The claimants are supposed to put forward all of their case in their WS, not ambush the defendant at the hearing.

What more could be said in the defence template than "if your POC are sparse use CEL v Chan"?  Your hearing will give posters some valuable guidance and we do suggest posters don't just stick to their own threads but do a bit of reading around.

i think the Template Defence is probably enough with Chan only?

But we could do a merged PDF of all the strike outs, with Chan first.  In addition to those we already use, there was an extra one on this forum a few weeks ago from Norwich Court, I think (claim struck out, no hearing).