IN THE ONLINE CIVIL MONEY CLAIMS SERVICE CENTRE
MOHAMMED SARHAN §
Claimant, §
§
v. § Claim No.: 284MC631
§
ANITA KAPUR §
Defendant. §
REPLY TO ANITA KAPUR’S DEFENCE
NOW COMES Mohammed Sarhan, Claimant, and files this Response to Anita Kapur’s Defence
pursuant to Rule 15.8 of the Civil Rules & Practice Directions, and hereby avers as follows:
1. On [Insert Date], Anita Kapur filed a Defence to Mohammed’s Claim. The Defence is
made in bad faith since Anita is refuting many stated facts from an account of what
actually happened and misrepresenting others entirely, or by half truths.
2. In reply to paragraph 3 of the Defence, the Defendant’s averment that the Claimant failed
to serve the Defendant and/or the Defendant’s insurance is false. The Claimant served the
Defendant’s insurance with his statement of truth, car estimated costs and WhatsApp
messages of his conversations with another tenant on 23 rd February 2022. See Exhibit 1.
Mohammed filed his claim before this Claims Service Centre on 29 th March 2022. The
Defendant ought to have filed her Defence by 19 th April 2022 but her solicitor called the
Claimant and extended the time for filing the Defence to 3 rd May 2022.
3. On 3 rd May 2022, the Defendant’s solicitor contacted the Claimant and informed him that
he would file Anita’s defence on 3 rd May 2022. The Claimant received an email from the
court confirming that Anita would file her Defence by 3 rd May 2022.
4. On 28 th April 2022, the Defendant’s solicitor sent correspondence to the Claimant and
expressed intention to extend the time for filing the Defence by 14 days. The Defendant’s
averment is untenable because her solicitor was served with the Claim and given
sufficient time to file a Defence.
5. In reply to paragraph 4 of the Defence, the Defendant’s averment that she does not solely
own the property on 76 Wootton Way, SL6 4QY and that it is owned jointly by multiple
parties is false. The Claimant is the one who lives on 76 Wootton Way, SL6 4QY. The
Defendant resides at 76a Wootton Way, SL6 4QY. The Claimant confirmed the
Defendant’s address with her son, Raj, who also confirmed that Anita was the policy
holder, not him. See Exhibit 2.
6. In reply to paragraph 5 of the Defence, the Defendant’s averment that the Claimant
improperly served the Defendant despite the Claimant knowing that the Defendant did
not reside at 76 Wootton Way, SL6 4QY is false as the Claimant properly served the
Claim at 76a Wootton Way, SL6 4QY through the Defendant’s neighbor. The neighbor
took a picture of the claim letter before handing it over to Raj, the Defendant’s son. See
Exhibit 3.
7. In reply to paragraph 9 of the Defence, the Claimant clearly explained the circumstances
that led to the collapsing of the brick wall on the Ford Focus registration number BN09
FSD in his statement of truth. See Exhibit 4.
8. In reply to paragraph 10 of the Defence, the Claimant received information from Raj that
the Defendant was the insurance policy holder. The fact that the damaged golden brick
wall is owned jointly by Anita and others does not negate the fact that she is the policy
holder.
9. In reply to paragraph 11 of the Defence, the Claimant has attached the log book showing
that he is the owner of the Ford Focus registration number BN09 FSD as well as the
invoice of purchase of the vehicle. See Exhibit 5.
10. In reply to paragraph 12 of the Defence, Ms. Rosario, the Claimant’s neighbor, had
complained verbally about the bad condition of the brick wall to his landlady, the
Defendant, long before the storm hit. All that time, the Defendant ignored Ms. Rosario’s
grievances and did nothing. The storm only accelerated the falling of the wall. Other
walls which were in good condition at the time of the storm did not collapse. Had the
Defendant listened to Ms. Rosario’s grievances and made repairs to the wall, it would not
have collapsed during the storm, just like the other walls that were in good condition. See
Exhibit 6.
11. In reply to paragraph 13 of the Defence, Ms. Rosario sent a complaint to the borough
before she verbally complained about the condition of the wall to the Defendant. See
Exhibit 7.
12. In reply to paragraph 14 of the Defence, the wall was in a moving condition with no
supports to its structure to the ground. The material used in construction of the wall was a
sandy material and not concrete. Ms. Rosario had raised that issue when she was viewing
the house but she did not think it was going to collapse. See Exhibit 6.
13. In reply to paragraph 15 of the Defence, if the Defendant wanted to avoid being
negligent, she should have conducted repairs the moment Ms. Rosario brought the bad
condition of the garden wall to her attention.
14. In reply to paragraph 17 of the Defence, after the storm, the whole wall collapsed to the
ground. Out of all the walls in the neighbourhood, only the garden brick wall collapsed,
despite being in “excellent condition” as the Defendant would like to mislead this Court.
15. In reply to paragraph 18 of the Defence, Ms. Rosario raised a complaint to the borough.
Mr. Oscar took pictures of the damage that had occurred. See Exhibit 8.
16. In reply to paragraph 19 of the Defence, the Claimant explained the circumstances
leading to the accident in his statement of truth. See Exhibit 1.
17. In reply to paragraph 20 of the Defence, Wale M’Dimagh has a valid license. Vehicle
registration number BN09 FSD has valid insurance. See Exhibit 9. As a matter of fact,
none of them has a bearing on the case since it has to do everything with the damaged
garden wall which caused damage to the vehicle.
18. In reply to paragraph 21 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that Wale M’Dimagh has
a valid license and that Ford Focus registration number BN09 FSD has a valid insurance.
See Exhibit 9.
19. In reply to paragraph 22 of the Defence, had the Defendant built the wall properly and
conducted repairs when concerns were raised, the brick wall would not have fallen onto
the Claimant’s wall, and this lawsuit would not exist. See Exhibit 6.
20. In reply to paragraph 23 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that the wall was in a
moving condition with no supports to its structure to the ground. The material used in
construction of the wall was a sandy material and not concrete. Ms. Rosario had raised
that issue when she was viewing the house but she did not think it was going to collapse.
See Exhibit 6.
21. In reply to paragraph 24 of the Defence, the Claimant has attached all invoices, contract
of hire of vehicle as well as quotations. See Exhibit 10.
22. In reply to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Defence, the Claimant followed up the claim but
no one offered to help him apart from Mr. Karl. See Exhibit 11.
23. In reply to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that the wall was
in a moving condition with no supports to its structure to the ground. The material used in
construction of the wall was a sandy material and not concrete. Ms. Rosario had raised
that issue when she was viewing the house but she did not think it was going to collapse.
See Exhibit 6.
24. In reply to paragraph 29 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that Ms. Rosario sent a
complaint to the borough before she verbally complained about the condition of the wall
to the Defendant but the Defendant took no action to repair the wall. See Exhibit 7.
25. In reply to paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates paragraphs 7 to 24
of this Reply to Anita’s Defence.
26. In reply to paragraph 33 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that Ms. Rosario sent a
complaint to the borough before she verbally complained about the condition of the wall
to the Defendant. See Exhibit 7.
27. In reply to paragraph 34 of the Defence, the Claimant explained the circumstances
leading to the accident in his statement of truth. See Exhibit 1.
28. In reply to paragraph 35 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that Wale M’Dimagh has
a valid license and that Ford Focus registration number BN09 FSD has a valid insurance.
See Exhibit 9.
29. In reply to paragraph 37 of the Defence, the Claimant has attached all invoices, contract
of hire of vehicle as well as quotations. See Exhibit 10.
30. In reply to paragraph 38 of the Defence, the Claimant has a video of the vehicle after a
thorough clean. The value of the vehicle before the garden wall collapsed on it was
£3,000.00, discounted to £2,700.00. See Exhibit 12.
31. In reply to paragraph 39 of the Defence, the excess sum of £420.00 in the Claimant’s
motor insurance is payable before anyone can take his case. The Claimant has to recover
the excess sum as he will pay it to the insurance company after settlement of this claim to
retain his 2 years no claim discount.
32. In reply to paragraph 40 of the Defence, the Claimant had to hire another vehicle to use
since his vehicle could not be driven as a result of damage from the collapsed garden
wall. The vehicle’s rear glasses were all broken. The Claimant could not drive his vehicle
as it was unroadworthy as per the code of driving. The Claimant has attached all invoices,
contract of hire of vehicle as well as quotations. See Exhibit 10.
33. In reply to paragraph 41 of the Defence, it was necessary for the Claimant to hire another
vehicle for his family. The Claimant has two sons who attend two different schools in
Maidenhead and Reading. The Claimant’s wife commutes to Windsor to attend meetings.
The Claimant’s family also attends family classes in Beaconsfield. The Claimant also
went household shopping with his vehicle. Since the damage on the Claimant’s vehicle,
the Claimant and his family have found it difficult to do the above activities. The
Defendant requiring the Claimant to have used other vehicles or modes of transport is
absurd. The Defendant cannot be negligent then expect the Claimant to reduce the quality
of his life after his vehicle got damaged as a result of the Defendant’s negligence. There
is a continuing obligation on the Defendant to keep up the standard of repair throughout
the Claimant’s tenancy. Proudfoot v. Hart [1890] 25 QBD 40; Luxmore v. Robson [1818]
B & Ald 584; Saner v. Bilton, [1878] 7 Ch. 815. The Claimant had no other option but to
hire another vehicle from a colleague friend for his use and that of his family. Had the
Defendant repaired the wall as requested by the Claimant, his vehicle would be in good
condition and he would have had no other reason for bringing this action.
34. In reply to paragraph 42 of the Defence, the Claimant has attached the log book showing
that he is the owner of the Ford Focus registration number BN09 FSD as well as the
invoice of purchase of the vehicle. See Exhibit 5.
35. In reply to paragraph 43 of the Defence, the Claimant hired a 2006 Honda Civic from a
colleague friend and not a car hiring company.
36. In reply to paragraph 44 of the Defence, the Claimant reiterates that he has two sons who
attend two different schools in Maidenhead and Reading. The Claimant’s wife commutes
to Windsor to attend meetings. The Claimant’s family also attends family classes in
Beaconsfield. The Claimant also went household shopping with his vehicle. Since the
damage on the Claimant’s vehicle, the Claimant and his family have found it difficult to
do the above activities. The Defendant requiring the Claimant to have used other vehicles
or modes of transport is absurd. The Defendant cannot be negligent then expect the
Claimant to reduce the quality of his life after his vehicle got damaged as a result of the
Defendant’s negligence.
37. In reply to paragraph 45 of the Defence, the Claimant has attached all invoices, contract
of hire of vehicle as well as quotations. See Exhibit 10.
38. In reply to paragraph 46 of the Defence, the Claimant has a video of the vehicle after a
thorough clean. The value of the vehicle before the garden wall collapsed on it was
£3,000.00, discounted to £2,700.00. See Exhibit 12.
39. The Defendant is liable for negligence and ought to pay damages to the Claimant.
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Claimant respectfully requests this
Claims Service Centre to grant him the following reliefs:
a. STRIKE Anita Kapur’s Defence;
b. GRANT judgment in favour of the Claimant;
c. AWARD the Claimant costs of repairing his vehicle;
d. AWARD the Claimant costs of hiring another vehicle for his convenience after his was
damaged due to the Defendant’s negligence;
e. AWARD the Claimant damages for negligence;
f. AWARD the Claimant punitive damages;
g. AWARD the Claimant the costs of this suit and attorney fees as allowed by law;
h. AWARD the Claimant such equitable relief as the Claims Service Center deems fair; and
i. AWARD the Claimant such further relief as the Claims Service Center deems just and
proper in the circumstances.
Dated this ____ day of June, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Mohammed Sahran,
Claimant
VERIFICATION
I, Mohammed Sahran, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Response
to Anita Kapur’s Defence and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own
knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to
those things, I believe them to be true.
___________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ____ day of June, 2022.
___________________________________
Notary Public
____________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: _______________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )