UKCPM County Court Claim HELP

Coupon-mad

None of what you say in para 5 is correct and you can’t just return letters to senders like that.  Just cross out #5.

Le_Kirk

6.     The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. The Claimant gave the Defendant a wrong permit as a visitor which the Defendant is a resident and not a visitor. 

As advised by @Coupon-mad, paragraph 5 still makes no sense, so just delete it.  The first sentence of paragraph 6 is fine (I know because I wrote it for you) but the did claimant give you the wrong permit or maybe the management company?  Maybe change it as: -

6.     The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. The Claimant gave the Defendant a wrong permit as a visitor which the Defendant is a resident and not a visitor.  Despite there being no need,  the defendant displayed the permit supplied to him out of courtesy.  The claimant is put to strict proof that this was the correct permit.

chris0147

Coupon-mad said:

None of what you say in para 5 is correct and you can’t just return letters to senders like that.  Just cross out #5.

Do I need to remove Paragraph 5 and use paragraph 6?

6.    The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. Despite there being no need,  the defendant displayed the permit supplied to him out of courtesy.  The claimant is put to strict proof that this was the correct permit.

chris0147

Le_Kirk said:

6.     The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. The Claimant gave the Defendant a wrong permit as a visitor which the Defendant is a resident and not a visitor. 

As advised by @Coupon-mad, paragraph 5 still makes no sense, so just delete it.  The first sentence of paragraph 6 is fine (I know because I wrote it for you) but the did claimant give you the wrong permit or maybe the management company?  Maybe change it as: -

6.     The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. The Claimant gave the Defendant a wrong permit as a visitor which the Defendant is a resident and not a visitor.  Despite there being no need,  the defendant displayed the permit supplied to him out of courtesy.  The claimant is put to strict proof that this was the correct permit.

Oh right so I have to delete paragraph 5 then?  Is the rest are good to go?

No, the claimant did not give me the wrong permit. The management company give me the wrong permit. I need to add that in my defence.

Coupon-mad

Add it instead of your deleted #5.

chris0147

Coupon-mad said:

Add it instead of your deleted #5.

What do I need to add it in the Paragraph #5??

chris0147

This is what I am thinking about add it to my Paragraph #5

5.     The Defendant received the letters in the post, but is denied to accept the demand as there is no breach of contract. The claimant sent more letters to defendant to demand for more with additional costs which is unlawful.

Le_Kirk

You have already been told to delete paragraph 5 in its entirety, why do you now want to add more illogical words.  In paragraph 6, I have crossed out that the claimant gave you the wrong permit, I have put that you displayed the permit that was supplied to you out of courtesy but the claimant MUST PROVE it was the correct one, which they cannot do if it was a visitor permit and not a resident one.  Keep the defence short, using the technical/legal arguments given and keep the story of what happened for the witness statement later in the process.

chris0147

Well I thought @Coupon-mad said that I need to delete the return to senders so I have removed it. But now you said i need to delete paragraph 5?

Is the paragraph 6 is good to go now?

chris0147

6.    The Defendant is a long term resident and has a tenancy agreement, which includes parking with no need to display a permit of any description. Despite there being no need,  the defendant displayed the permit supplied to him out of courtesy.  The claimant is put to strict proof that this was the correct permit.