Exclusive Wedding Cars Letter Of Claim - want Full balance after refusing my deposit return

[arklst1976]

Nah. Date's wrong by an entire year. But its wrong anyway. It's just more frantic bashing away at the keyboard without checking facts etc or reading it over.

I'd expected more from a formal document, covered by PAP CPR rules

[arklst1976]

  Hi folks,
Reply to the LbA sent off today.
Continuing to work on defence.

 

[dx100uk]

You dont need a defence

you dont need a counterclaim...

 

there is no court claim and it would be very silly for one to be raised..

 

Dx

[arklst1976]

Yeah, I here you Dx.
I'll do the research anyway, just in case.

Cheers

[arklst1976]

Happy Friday everyone.
Post arrived today, with another frantically bashed out load of waffle.

Enjoy

EWC-letter-after-LbA.pdf

[FruitSalad1010]

You are being sued for pecuniary losses.

The Claimant has several issues with their claim which you should certainly raise to the judge.

1) Unfair contract

The reason the "contract" is likely unfair is they deem 4 months as an appropriate period of time after which their "losses" cannot be recovered. You should argue this is unreasonable as any business worth its salt should be able to attract new business within 4 months. Perhaps their attitude of threatening to sue their customers contributes to this lack of business? A more appropriate period may be 2-4 weeks or alternatively invite the court to determine a period.

Effectively what the Claimant has tried to include in their terms is a penalty clause. My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected on this point, is that there is no lawful basis for a right of action under a penalty clause and they are in effect unenforceable.

2) Evidence of loss

It is for the Claimant to prove that had the alleged contract breach not taken place that they had gains prevented.

 

The Claimant should be put to strict proof that their booking schedule was otherwise full. Here the Claimant is stuck between a rock and a hard place, an empty booking schedule indicates what they offer isn't competitive. A full booking schedule raises the question as to why they were unable to attract business for the specific date of your cancellation and whether they took reasonable steps to mitigate their losses (see point 3).

You can now refer to the Claimant's letter indicating that they receive plenty of enquiries, so the fact that despite receiving potentially up to 3450 enquiries for business following your cancellation the fact no business was forthcoming is more likely because what was on offer simply was not competitive or enticing to the market.

3) Mitigation of loss

The Claimant is expected to mitigate their losses.

The Claimant should be put to strict proof that they took steps to do so, perhaps by way of offering a reduced rate in order secure business on the date of cancellation, reduce their losses and instead claim the difference.

Even if the contract is deemed to be fair, which is unlikely, then the Claimant will have further difficulty in substantiating that a 4 business day delay is likely to have materially contributed to their pecuniary losses. What the Claimant doesn't appear to fully appreciate is that in order for the contractual term to be fair it must reasonably account for the losses incurred and not be used opportunistically as a penalty. 

I would put it to the judge that term as it is written does not form a genuine pre-estimate of loss but rather it is an opportunistic way for the Claimant to make money using a penalty, a penalty brought about because what their business has to offer isn't competitive enough to generate bookings.

Pay close attention to the vehicles that were allegedly not in use that day, do they match that on your booking?

[arklst1976]

Thanks for the input @FruitSalad1010

Some good points there, thanks.

[stu007]

Hi

 

As well as the above info

 

1. The Terms and Conditions you agreed to and signed in there Office (post#1) at the bottom states 'Internet Bookings Have The Same Legal Terms And Conditions'. Except there Website under 'Contact Us'  refers to 'Terms of Business' which states conflicting information to the Terms and Conditions you actually signed therefore these Website Terms of Business they refer to you DID NOT Sign nor agree to so are irrelevant as it was not an Internet Booking.

 

If they still wish to claim you signed/agreed to there Terms of Business why were you not provided with a copy of them to sign in there Office.  (make sure and take a few different screenshots of the different areas of there website)

 

2. Irrespective that as they keep claiming they are a Small Business whether they are taking bookings in there Office or Online via there Website they have to legally abide by the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) which includes the General Data Protection Regulations 2018 (GPDR) as they are Processing individuals Personal Data so exactly where is there Data Protection/Privacy Policy. (note they accept bookings via website but fail to display a Data Protection/Privacy Policy which should include your rights when Processing Data)

 

 

[Justice1234]

Dear sirs you all have educated me so much to the extreme that yous all make it quite clear yous are all just a bunch of people that congragte together to bully small family run  business. Or any business that operates with terms of business. What would even be the point of having any terms of business when yous look for any excuse to get out of the contractual agreement. The world runs on contractual agreements and there is only judge's in a court of law can say if a contractual agreement is fair or unfair. 

 

Weddings are booked years in advance not 2 weeks as yous have stated And the money owed to my business is what it's lost due to the customers change of mind .nothing more nothing less 

 

The booking was at my office on an offer and acceptance and to secure the deal there was a contractual agreement signed for wich was in breach from a written email of cancellation. Nothing more nothing less 

 

Yous all can come up with whatever excuse you like to provide to the consumer but unfortunately in this case the deal was legally binding 

 

Hope yous all have an amazing Sunday