IN THE ONLINE CIVIL MONEY CLAIMS SERVICE CENTRE
MOHAMMED SARHAN §
Claimant, §
§
v. § Claim No.: 284MC631
§
ANITA KAPUR §
Defendant. §
RESPONSE TO ANITA KAPUR’S DEFENCE
NOW COMES Mohammed Sarhan, Claimant, and files this Response to Anita Kapur’s Defence,
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. The Defendant’s averment that the Claimant failed to serve the Defendant and/or the
Defendant’s insurance has already been settled. 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.
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. The Defendant avers that she does not solely own the property on 76 Wootton Way, SL6
4QY and that it is owned jointly by multiple parties. This 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.
6. The Defendant avers that the Claimant improperly served the Defendant despite the
Claimant knowing that the Defendant did not reside at 76 Wootton Way, SL6 4QY. This
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 Claimant’s son.
7. The Defendant avers that she did not wholly own the damaged golden brick wall. 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.
8. The Defendant blames the collapsing of the brick wall on the storm Eunice which had hit
UK on that day. The Claimant 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 the Claimant’s grievances and did nothing.
9. 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 the
Claimant’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.
10. The Defendant falsely states that the garden brick wall was in excellent condition. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Defendant denies negligence in failing to action repairs. If she wanted to avoid being
negligent, she should have conducted repairs the moment the Claimant brought the bad
condition of the garden wall to her attention.
13. Wale M’Dimagh has a valid license. Vehicle registration number BN09 FSD has valid
insurance. 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.
14. The Defendant denies that the brick wall fell onto the Claimant’s vehicle because it was
not well maintained. 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.
15. The Defendant insists on documentary evidence to prove damage to the Claimant’s
vehicle. 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.
16. 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.
17. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof regarding the vehicle he hired, including
the need to hire another vehicle. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. It has been established above that the Defendant (landlady) owed the Claimant (tenant) a
duty of care to ensure that the property leased to the Claimant is in good condition. This
includes conducting necessary repairs to ensure there is no harm to the Claimant, his
family, or his personal property.
22. The Defendant breached that duty of care when she failed to repair the garden brick wall
which was visibly in bad condition. The Claimant promptly informed the Defendant
about the wall but she did not take any action to repair the wall.
23. As a result of the Defendant’s breach of duty of care by failing to repair the wall, the wall
collapsed and fell onto the Claimant’s vehicle, thus causing damage to it. In applying the
test of reasonability, it was reasonable for the Defendant to repair the wall after the
Claimant had complained about its deplorable condition. However, she chose to ignore
the Claimant until the wall collapsed on his vehicle.
24. 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.
25. 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 )