Using Section 213(5) doesn't work either - had the compensation element of my claim against LL struck out today, despite relying on that. Also tried to distinguish my claim from Hashemi on the fact that the LL had told me the deposit was protected during the tenancy, so I inevitably only found out the truth at the end, but this didn't fly either.

Having failed to get any consideration from Monarch over my volcano claim, I issued a small claim against them for various issues. In their acknowledgement of service, they stated that they were defending the whole claim. However, since they received the claim they have actually refunded a small amount of money (from a booking fee which they shouldn't have charged, and which was part of the claim), and they have admitted to owing about a third of the total claim, but they only seem to be offering to pay this if it doesn't go to court (even though it is phrased mostly as an admission). I have received their defence and it seems to also make a partial admission. If they are only disputing the rest of the amount, surely they need to be paying back what they do admit - not waiting to see if I give up on going to court for the rest? Can I apply for the defence to be struck out on the basis that it doesn't match their acknowledgement of service? Or can I apply for the record to show a partial admission?