How much is your claim for?

If you are self employed then there will be no wage slips;).

Thank you! Finally someone who read my opening post!

Do you have up to date self employed accounts to show the court plus regular bank payments to yourself in the past which you can show the court? Also any invoicing to show a pattern of past/future income? Just a few ideas:D

This is very useful, thank you.

Do you think it would really require this level of detail, in reality? Are the courts really this strict?

I ask, because I do not wish for my private financial affairs to be interrogated in detail in front of the defendant.

What do you think?

Check the online guidance for the correct amount.

Edit: Guidance located here.

I have been asked to demonstrate my loss of earnings comprising an amount for which I am suing for as directly foreseeable consequential damages.

What would generally be accepted to be credible evidence of loss of earnings in the the County Court? I have been self employed as a consultant for the last few years and during the period in question.

Any advice or the benefit of anyone's experience would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you!

I am currently involved County Court litigation with Royal Mail.

They have served a Witness Statement upon me by post this morning, approximately one month ahead of the scheduled date of the hearing.

Would this suggest that they do not plan to attend or send a representative to the hearing?

As I have stated in the previous posts, this transaction concerned is between two private individuals.

I believe 'Redgrave v Hurd' is still good law. If it has since been overturned then please be so kind as to state the relevant case in point.

I found the correct form to be the generic N244, for both.

Only if you can prove the seller was clairvoyant!

I take it you have never acquainted yourself with the landmark case of Redgrave v Hurd (1881).

Dear Sir, I thank you for your valuable advice on this thread, but I cannot accept your assertions on the basis which you have set out. The legal principles which they would appear to present seem to be legally untenable to my mind. Allow me to explain...

... Since the evidence you speak of were provided at the time of sale, I'm surprised you are even attempting to seek any recourse after-the-event, when the correct time to do this was at the purchasing stage, not after it....

I would suggest that the time when the contract for sale was formed was when consideration initially passed - ie the payment of a 10% deposit - on the basis of the eBay auction and the condition of the vehicle which was set out therein.

The contract was therefore formed on the basis of the condition of the vehicle which the seller represented online, and that this was the time of sale. Facts provided at the time of sale was therefore the condition of the vehicle set out in the auction. I would suggest that a detailed photographic eBay auction is quite different from a traditional discreet classifieds advert, in this sense.

As for selling a dangerous vehicle - the private seller has no duty of care, other han he must not mislead....

I would suggest that in this case the difference between the condition of the vehicle as stated in the eBay auction and the condition of the vehicle as was later evident, demonstrates that the seller clearly did mislead. Regardless of whether he knew it or not. A duty of care cannot be disregarded due to a lack of knowledge, can it. Though of course I would prefer to not bring duty of care into this, as I would prefer to address this as a contractual issue rather than an issue in tort.

He may not have the technical knowledge either way, therefore when making a private sale this additional burden falls to you.

So am I right in thinking that you are suggesting that the misrepresentation of goods held out for sale, where done in good faith, absolves the seller's duty of care in tort and duty to truthful and accurate representation when attempting to form a contract?

I agree fully with all the other points regarding MOT tests.

Please don't take this as a direct challenge from me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply wish to address head-on the points which you've previously raised so as to determine what the precise legal position here may be. Thank you for reading this. I look forward to your next response, if you feel that one may be necessary.

The seller provided the vehicle's service history. This included documents concerning last three MOTs. Each MOT was initially failed due to 'severe corrosion' to many areas of the vehicles chassis, including both the nearside and offside rear wheel arches. Each time, an invoice was raised for very non-descript 'repair work', and each time the vehicle passed the subsequent MOT retest.

However, from a very careful inspection of the nearside rear wheel arch, I am assured by an expert that there has never been any repair work performed the nearside rear wheel arch in the vehicle's history. It would appear necessary to report to VOSA concerning the MOT test centre which originally purported to have performed such work.

Regarding my contractual relationship with the seller, is it certain that I would not have any recourse for misrepresentation?

How about for the sale of goods not fit for purpose which they were held out for sale for - ie to perform a reasonable level of continued performance as a motor vehicle?

Please tell me more about demonstrating an instance of the sale of a dangerous motor vehicle!

Thank you for your reply. It is very helpful. Allow me to explain a little more...

I in fact bought a car under these circumstances recently. The seller stated in his eBay listing: "Bit of rust, mainly in the boot." Then showing a photo of a tiny amount of rust in the boot sill.

After winning the eBay auction, I then viewed the car in person. I asked the seller at this time if there were any other problems with the car. His responses was an authoritative 'No'.

Then, ten days after purchasing this car, the entire rear suspension system fell out whilst I was driving it. The reason, as determined by an MOT test centre owner: "Sever long-term corrosion to the inside of the rear wheel arches".

Do you think this might sound like a case of misrepresentation on this basis?

If a private seller holds out an item for sale, and expressly states the items condition, but the item then transpires to have problems which were not represented in that description of condition... Does that provide the purchaser with recourse through the county court, on the basis of misrepresentation?

Forgive me if I was unclear: I am not talking about prudence (seeking an MOT appraisal, etc). I am thinking more about legal obligation.

I would like to buy a second-hand car which has been advertised for sale online.

The seller has said, both in his advert and in private emails, that the car is sound in every way and has no defects.

When I view the car in person, with the hope of buying it, what am I required to do in law to cover myself, as far as any reasonable person should be expected to?

Or would the contract for sale simply be formed on the basis of the descriptions used by the seller when he held-out the vehicle for sale? (Unless something was immediately and readily apparent to the contrary?)

Do I have a subsequent time-frame for inspection?

What if the car turns out to be dangerous motor vehicle, or simply not fit for purpose? What if this is caused by an issue which could not possibly be foreseen during any reasonable private investigations on the side of the road?

Surely the law does not expect every private buyer to undertake his own 150 point mechanical investigation before concluding contracts? Such an expectation would seem unreasonable!

Learned Gurus, please advise! I don't want to put a foot wrong! Thank you.

I have been browsing your brilliant forums for a long time. I now have two quick questions and I hope that someone will help me.

I recently raised a claim in the County Court. It's a long story, so I won't bore you with the background details of the claim itself.

I would now like to make two applications to the County Court in relation to my case:

1. To make an application for expert witness evidence to be used.

I understand that this should apparently be in accordance with CPR Part 23.

2. To make an application for the location of the hearing to be changed.

This would be on the basis that the venue is over 100 miles away from my home, and that I am unable to reach the venue by public transport for the 1000am listed hearing time, and that I am currently claiming benefits and cannot afford such expensive train-fare either. I would propose a venue which is within a reasonable traveling distance from my home. The hearing is scheduled for approximately eleven weeks time. The defendant is a private individual, and not a company.

My question is - which form should be used for each of these applications?

Summary

The level of student finance which appears to be available to mature students simply does not appear to cover even the most basic costs of living.

What are mature students expected to do in order to pay the bills?

Please, read on...

Background

I am 25 years old and have been practising as an Accountant since I left school immediately after A-Levels at the age of 18. I have decided to return to University to study a fast-track (2 year) degree in Law, hopefully followed by the Bar Vocational Course or Legal Practice Course, in order to change direction in my career.

The money

Financing

From my initial investigations I have determined that the following sources of finance are available to me as an independent mature student entering university for the first time:

Maintenance loan of £ 3,564

Fee loan of up to £ 3,225

Maintenance Grant of £ 2,906

Total £ 9,695

But... for the purposes of my day-to-day finances, I must exclude the fee loan from my calculations, as I understand this will be paid directly to the university which provides my tuition. So in reality, the money which will be available to me to fund my living expenses is as follows:

Maintenance loan of £ 3,564

Maintenance Grant of £ 2,906

Annual total £ 6,780

Costs of living

I have calculated my expected monthly cost of living as follows:

Food 150

Internet 25

Mobile phone 10

Electricit 15

Water 15

Council tax 0

Home insurance 20

Socialising 65

Rent 450

Total 750

Annual total £ 9,000

£9,000 vs £6,780

My problem

Comparing my most reasonably expected living costs of £9,000 to the funding available of £6,780, there is an immediate problem staring me in the face.

I don't know how to reconcile or workaround this problem, and I would greatly appreciate your help.

What is a mature student supposed to do?

The books simply don't appear to balance!