Drafting-Particulars of Claim



BIANCA BOUNTY                                  Claimant



(2)   REG.HOWARD & SONS (a firm)      Defendants


  1. The Claimant is the owner of both a washing machine and Cartier watch. The first Defendant is a washing machine repairman and is a partner in the second Defendants firm of plumbers, fitters and electricians who held themselves out as skilled, experienced and competent to carry out the repairs and service from their offices at 82 Battle Street, Vauxhall, London SW2.
  2. By an oral agreement made at the Claimant’s flat 6A Caernarvon Mews, London W2 on Sunday 22nd June 2003 between the Claimant and the first Defendant, it was agreed that the first Defendant would fix her broken washing machine in return for a ticket to the Fashion and Glamour Awards in September, which was worth £100 face value. The first Defendant on his own behalf or on behalf of the Second Defendants agreed to do so.
  3. The first Defendant knew at the time of the agreement that the Claimant would rely on his repair and servicing of the washing machine to wash her clothes.
  4. It was an implied term of the agreement that the first Defendant would repair and service the Claimant’s washing machine with all reasonable care and skill to be expected of an experienced, skilled and competent repairman. Further or alternatively the Defendants owed the Claimant a duty to exercise such care and skill.
  5. The first Defendant in performance of the contract repaired the washing machine on 22nd June 2003 assuring the Claimant that the machine works fine, and explained to the Claimant the cause of the fault, namely an Intel valve was stuck, which prevented the machine filling up with water.
  6. At about 9.p.m on 22nd June 2003, the Claimant before going to sleep filled the machine up and set it going. The next morning at about 6.a.m when the Claimant woke up, the whole flat was flooded with water, all the carpets were wet, and there were puddles of water in places. As water was still running into and out of the washing machine, the Claimant turned it off.
  7. In repairing the machine and servicing, referred to above, the Defendants were in breach of the implied term of the agreement and /or the first Defendant was negligent in that:


(a)    He sabotaged the washing machine.

(b)   He failed to identify the actual cause of the fault.

(c)    He failed to measure the consequences of bad workmanship.

(d)   He failed to take any or adequate precautions to avoid damage in repairing washing machine.

(e)    He failed to check the machine’s performance with reasonable time after being repaired.

(f)     He failed to disclose the Claimant his experience and skills of repairing the washing machine.

(g)    He assured the Claimant that the machine was working fine when he ought to have known that the machine would or would likely to break down.

(h)    He failed in all the circumstances to exercise the care and skill expected of a competent repairman.

8.      As a result of the matters set out above of the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.



(1) Lost of assignment fee due to the missing flight                                  10,000.

(2) Cost of new washing machine                                                             350

(3) Cost of pulling up all carpets for drying and then relaying them               587.50

(4) Value of books and tapes ruined                                                           95

(5) Cost for Bertie’s new ceiling plaster and decorations                              1,116.25

(6) Cost for investigating the damage to the washing machine                       64.62

(7) Earning of two weeks instead of going Bahamas                                     750-


9.      Furthermore, the first Defendant has wrongfully taken possession, defined as a act of conversion, of the Claimant’s Cartier watch from her jewellery case when he was in her flat, on a date unknown to the Claimant, but between 21st June and 22nd June 2003. The first Defendant however has at all times since that date to return to the Claimant the Cartier watch, but failed to do so.

10.  The Claimant has suffered loss due to the first Defendant’s wrongful possession of the Cartier watch. Moreover, the current value of the replacement of the watch is unknown to the Claimant but can be assessed by the Court.

11.  Further the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit.

AND the Claimant claims:

(1) Damages.

(2) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.



Dated etc.