DCBL Letter of claim

NorthWalian

Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (See Exhibit 9). As such it is also requested that this claim is struck out as similar to Exhibit 9, the fees included are an abuse of process and should not be legitimized by the court.

How does that sound as a paragraph just before the conclusion?

Coupon-mad

Courts are no longer striking out claims for adding fake costs. Maybe instead end that paragraph putting the C to strict proof that 'damages' of a hugely disproportionate £70 were incurred/paid to a third party debt collector for failing to collect under what is always a no-win-no-fee arrangement.

NorthWalian

Coupon-mad said:

Courts are no longer striking out claims for adding fake costs. Maybe instead end that paragraph putting the C to strict proof that 'damages' of a hugely disproportionate £70 were incurred/paid to a third party debt collector for failing to collect under what is always a no-win-no-fee arrangement.

Thank you

How does this sound?

Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (See Exhibit 9). As such, it is also requested that the claimant proves that the amount claimed can be justified as 'damages' through being incurred via the claims process, especially as no-win-no-fee arrangements are available for the benefit of car park operators.

Coupon-mad

No. Use the correct legal phrase I gave you.

NorthWalian

Coupon-mad said:

No. Use the correct legal phrase I gave you.

Let me try again

Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (See Exhibit 9). As such, it is requested that the Claimant is put to strict proof that 'damages' of a hugely disproportionate £70 were incurred/paid to a third party debt collector for failing to collect under what is always a no-win-no-fee arrangement.

Coupon-mad

Remove "As such, it is requested that"

NorthWalian

Let me try again v2

Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson (See Exhibit 9). As such, the Claimant is put to strict proof that 'damages' of a hugely disproportionate £70 were incurred/paid to a third party debt collector for failing to collect under what is always a no-win-no-fee arrangement.

Coupon-mad

That's it.  

NorthWalian

Coupon-mad said:

That's it.  

Is it good to be sent now and if so, is it via email or post?

1505grandad

A suggestion  -  instead of "As such, the Claimant is put to strict proof..."  -  state "The claimant is therefore put to strict proof....."  (or miss out the "As such" altogether)

A quick Google search:-

"Can you use as such in academic writing?

'As such' is a tricky phrase that should be avoided in formal settings. It may be used as a colloquial phrase in informal speech to replace 'therefore"