BW Legal Claim Form Via County Court Business Centre please help?

Le_Kirk

No, it wasn't sarcastic, just follow any advice given by @Coupon-mad.

Manjaik

Le_Kirk said:

No, i wasn't sarcastic, just follow any advice given by @Coupon-mad.

Thank you, I totally understand I recently have a lot of people making loads of sarcasm around me.  

Manjaik

Safe to say this one can be submitted to them ?

Manjaik

@Le_Kirk
@Coupon-mad

I found a clause in my AST saying "The tenant is entitled to use parking on or about the property". 
And as I understand that backs up my reasoning with them.

Mikeh2001

Seems like you have a strong case.  You should evidence the lease agreement as an exhibit if it's not already.

1) In the text you have from the templates under "concealed traps" it's refers to a kiosk in a store.  Does it apply to your case?
2) I haven't looked back at this thread but for the content past your sequence of events have you used the same or similar text in your defence? If so, You don't necessarily need to repeat it all.

Finally you should unify the font and size throughout the document.

Manjaik

Mikeh2001 said:

Seems like you have a strong case.  You should evidence the lease agreement as an exhibit if it's not already.

1) In the text you have from the templates under "concealed traps" it's refers to a kiosk in a store.  Does it apply to your case?
2) I haven't looked back at this thread but for the content past your sequence of events have you used the same or similar text in your defence? If so, You don't necessarily need to repeat it all.

Finally you should unify the font and size throughout the document.

Good point, on font thank you.
I see what you mean, so the Beavis case is agaisnt this claim Para would be irrelevant, since I am not arguing the signage initially. ?! 

Coupon-mad

No.  You were not advised to remove a paragraph, merely a small irrelevant phrase.

No-one said to remove entire paragraphs UNLESS they were stated verbatim in your defence already, in which case no need to repeat it.

Of course you are arguing on signage!  And the false added costs (BW Legal are only entitled to the capped '£50 legal fees' on the right of the claim form.  They can't invent more costs).

Mikeh2001

The issue is with the highlighted parts.  It's also refers to clamping, which I don't think is true.

Is there £100 penalty cause buried in small print? If that is true then you should exhibit the signs.

It looks like you used the template defence which covers all CRA/Beavis.  If you are going to repeat this again in your witness statement, at least make it the same content. It's not your primary defence (that's chan and the terms of your lease) but I have no reason to think it doesn't also apply.

You also have three paragraphs which are marked as "1" - that needs to be fixed.

Manjaik

Mikeh2001 said:

The issue is with the highlighted parts.  It's also refers to clamping, which I don't think is true.

Is there £100 penalty cause buried in small print? If that is true then you should exhibit the signs.

It looks like you used the template defence which covers all CRA/Beavis.  If you are going to repeat this again in your witness statement, at least make it the same content. It's not your primary defence (that's chan and the terms of your lease) but I have no reason to think it doesn't also apply.

You also have three paragraphs which are marked as "1" - that needs to be fixed.

Exactly This is why I though wehter should I delete it.

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

No.  You were not advised to remove a paragraph, merely a small irrelevant phrase.

No-one said to remove entire paragraphs UNLESS they were stated verbatim in your defence already, in which case no need to repeat it.

Of course you are arguing on signage!  And the false added costs (BW Legal are only entitled to the capped '£50 legal fees' on the right of the claim form.  They can't invent more costs).

Okay I see. they were already mentioned in Defence so no point having them.
SO Should I still keep the para regarding the signage, although my main point of argue is not the signage ? but the AST and primacy of contract and no mention regarding parking schemes also the fact it was introduced after 2 years. ?