IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE Claim No.
BETWEE
N
COUTURE HANDBAGS LIMITED Claimant
and
SENTINEL ALARM SYSTEMS LIMITED Defendant
_____________________________________
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_____________________________________
1. At all material times:
a. the Claimant was and is a company which sells handbags from shop premises at 1
Magdalene Street, Cambridge, CB3 0AF (“the Premises”);
b. the Defendant was and is a company which supplies, installs and maintains alarm
systems; and
c. the Defendant was acting in the course of its business.
2. By means of an advertisement placed by the Defendant by November 2021 on [Link], the
online version of Yellow Pages (“the Advertisement”), the Defendant, in order to induce the
Claimant to enter into a contract with the Defendant, represented to the Claimant that the
Defendant “always work[ed] to British Standards” (“the Written Representation”).
1
3. Induced by and in reliance on the Written Representation, the Claimant entered into a
written contract with the Defendant whereby the Defendant would install and maintain an
alarm system for the Claimant (“the Contract”). The Contract was signed on or about 5
November 2021 by Ms Scarlett Hawkins of the Claimant at the Premises and by Mr Matthew
Snow of the Defendant at an unknown location.
4. The Contract consisted of the main terms, the Special Conditions and the specification,
copies of which are attached to these Particulars of Claim. The Contract included the
following:
a. the Defendant would install an alarm system at the Premises (clause 1 of the main
terms);
b. the Contract would remain in force for a period of one year from the date of installation
and could by extended by the parties for further one year periods (clause 2 of the main
terms);
c. the Claimant would pay to the Defendant an installation charge of £2,678 for the basic
system and a charge of £464 for maintenance for one year from the installation (clause 3
of the main terms);
d. the Defendant would provide a 24 hour “call-out and additional services” visit when
requested by the Claimant at a standard visit charge of £100 per hour labour, £50 per
hour travel time and 45p per mile costs, with any required additional or replacement
parts charged at cost plus 10% (clause 9 of the main terms); and
e. any significant alteration, replacement or addition to be made by the Defendant to
equipment installed by the Defendant (for which the Claimant would be charged more
than £250) would be treated as a variation of the Contract, would be confirmed in writing
or by email by the Claimant prior to the commencement of the works and would
thereafter be governed by the terms of the Contract (clause 5 of the Special Conditions).
5. At the time the Contract was entered into, the Defendant knew that the purpose of the alarm
system was to protect the Premises from burglary.
2
6. Accordingly, the following terms were implied into the Contract pursuant to the Supply of
Goods and Services Act 1982:
a. the alarm system supplied by the Defendant would be of satisfactory quality (section
4(2);
b. the alarm system supplied by the Defendant would be reasonably fit for the purpose of
protecting the Premises from burglary (section 4(5));
c. the alarm system supplied by the Defendant would correspond with the description in the
Advertisement in that it would comply with British standards (section 3(2)); and
d. the Defendant would carry out the installation and maintenance of the alarm system with
reasonable care and skill (section 13).
7. Pursuant to the Contract:
a. on or about 5 November 2021 the Claimant paid to the Defendant £1,339 (50% of the
installation charge);
b. on or about 5 November 2021 the Defendant installed at the Premises the alarm system
(“the Original System”);
c. on or about 10 November 2021 the Claimant paid to the Defendant £1,339 (the
remaining 50% of the installation charge) and £464 (the first annual maintenance
charge).
8. Over the following few weeks, two or three burglaries occurred in the vicinity of the
Premises, all through the side windows of shops. As a result of a conversation at the
Premises on or about 10 December 2021 between Ms Hawkins and Mr Sadler, the
Defendant knew that the Claimant wanted additional protection to prevent intruders from
gaining access to the Premises by an unprotected side window on the ground floor (“the
Side Window”).
3
9. During the course of that visit, in order to induce the Claimant to enter into a variation of the
Contract with the Defendant, Mr Sadler on behalf of the Defendant orally represented to Ms
Hawkins of the Claimant that--although the Claimant could have a separate full alarm
system connected to the Side Window--the placing of additional wiring around the Side
Window (which would be connected to the Original System), though not as good as a full
alarm system, “would be enough to deter intruders” (“the Oral Representation”).
10. Induced by and in reliance on the Written Representation and the Oral Representation, on or
about 10 December 2021 (and confirmed by the Claimant’s email to the Defendant on the
same day) the Claimant entered into a variation of the Contract with the Defendant whereby
the Defendant would install at the Premises additional wiring around the Side Window for a
price to be calculated in accordance with clause 9 of the main terms of the Contract.
11. By virtue of clause 5 of the Special Conditions, the express terms of the Contract applied to
the variation.
12. The following additional terms were implied into the Contract, as varied, pursuant to the
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982:
a. the additional wiring supplied by the Defendant would be of satisfactory quality (section
4(2));
b. the additional wiring supplied by the Defendant would be reasonably fit for the purpose
of preventing intruders from gaining access to the Premises by the Side Window (section
4(5));
c. the additional wiring supplied by the Defendant would correspond with the description in
the Advertisement in that it would comply with British standards (section 3(2)); and
d. the Defendant would carry out the installation and maintenance of the additional wiring
with reasonable care and skill (section 13).
13. Pursuant to the variation of the Contract:
4
a. on or about 10 December 2021 the Defendant installed the additional wiring around the
Side Window (“the Additional Wiring”);
b. on or about 10 December 2021 the Claimant paid to the Defendant a “call-out and
additional services charge” of £270.
14. On or about 13 December 2021, at some time during the night, unknown intruders broke into
the Premises through the Side Window and stole handbags from the Premises. The alarm
did not go off.
15. The Written Representation and the Oral Representation were false in that:
PARTICULARS OF FALSITY
a. the Additional Wiring did not comply with British Standard 4737; and
b. the Additional Wiring was not enough to deter intruders on or about 13 December 2021.
16. In relation to the claim in misrepresentation, the Claimant will rely upon the provisions of
section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 as entitling it to the relief claimed.
17. Further or alternatively, the Defendant was in breach of the Contract (as varied) in that:
PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF CONTRACT
a. the Additional Wiring did not comply with British Standard 4737;
b. the Additional Wiring contained a number of loose connections which caused a short
circuit in the system, such that the Additional Wiring and the Original System ceased to
function;
c. the Additional Wiring was not properly installed;
d. the Defendant failed to test the Additional Wiring on installation (or at all);
5
e. the Additional Wiring was not of satisfactory quality;
f. the Additional Wiring was not reasonably fit for the purpose of preventing intruders from
gaining access to the Premises by the Side Window;
g. the Additional Wiring did not correspond with the description in the Advertisement – it did
not comply with British standards; and
h. the Defendant failed to carry out the installation of the Additional Wiring with reasonable
care and skill.
18. As a result of the Defendant’s misrepresentations and/or breach of contract, the alarm did
not go off during the burglary on or about 13 December 2021, and the intruders were
therefore not deterred. The burglars stole 800 handbags, whose cost value was £10,000
and whose retail value was £70,000. The Claimant has paid or will pay extra transportation
costs, at 10p per bag, to take delivery of replacement bags.
19. As a result of the matters set out above, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage as
follows:
PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE
a. cost value of stolen handbags £10,000;
b. lost profit on stolen handbags (£70,000 less £10,000) £60,000;
c. extra transportation costs for delivery of replacement bags £80;
d. installation charge for the Original System £2,678;
e. annual maintenance charge £464;
f. call-out and additional services charge for the Additional Wiring £270;
6
g. repairs to the Premises £[ ].
20. Further, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the
rate of 8% per year as follows:
a. on the sum of £13,412 (items (a), (d), (e) and (f) in paragraph 19 above) from 13
December 2021, amounting to £185.20 at 14 February 2022 and then continuing at the
daily rate of £2.94 until judgment or sooner payment;
b. on the sum of £60,000 (item (b) in paragraph 19 above) from […], amounting to […] at
14 February 2022 and then continuing at the daily rate of £13.15 until judgment or
sooner payment;
c. on the sum of £80 (item (c) in paragraph 19 above) from […], amounting to […] at 14
February 2022 and then continuing at the daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner
payment;
d. on the cost of the repairs to the Premises (item (g) in paragraph 19 above) from […],
amounting to […] at 14 February 2022 and then continuing at the daily rate of […] until
judgment or sooner payment;
e. alternatively, on such sums and for such period as the court thinks fit.
AND the Claimant claims:
(1) Damages;
(2) Damages pursuant to section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967;
(3) Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 as set out in paragraph 20
above;
(4) Such further or other relief as the court sees fit to grant; and
(5) Costs.
7
JESSICA BROCKLEBANK
KINGSGATE CHAMBERS
14 FEBRUARY 2022
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
*(I believe)The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes,
or causes to make, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an
honest belief in its truth.
* I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement
Full name: Scarlett Hawkins
Name of Claimant’s legal representative’s firm: Price Prior LLP
Signed: Scarlett Hawkins Position or office held: Director
*(Claimant)(Litigation friend) (if signing on behalf of firm or company)
(Claimant’s legal representative)
*delete as appropriate
Price Prior LLP
Lion House
Lion Yard
Cambridge
CB2 3NA
