Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Wife nearly killed by builder


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2106 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I promise that I’m not exaggerating.

I’m quite shocked about the incident and not entirely sure what to do.

 

Would welcome some advice.

 

We’re having a loft conversion done by a seemingly reputable building company.

 

Earlier this week my wife was in our first floor bedroom when a steel girder came crashing through the ceiling.

 

It didn’t drop through all the way

- the builder working in the loft was able to stop it.

 

it came down a long way: certainly beyond head height.

My wife had been standing exactly where it came crashing down only a moment before

- fortunately she had moved just before the incident.

She would have been struck on the head otherwise, with presumably devastating consequences.

It’s really frightening to think about, to be honest.

 

The builder was quite shaken by the whole incident, but his supervisor seemed to imply that it wasn’t too serious, said he didn’t think the beam had descended all that far, and promised to fix the ceiling.

 

My wife is adamant that she knows exactly how far the beam came down

- the supervisor wasn’t there of course.

 

I wrote to the company to say that this was a really serious matter, that a disaster had narrowly been averted, and that I wanted both a proper investigation and for the incident to be formally reported as a “near miss”.

 

The Director of the company called me back the same day, was quite apologetic, but said there was little to be done now. The nature of the incident - ie no one was actually hurt -

- meant that there was no body that the incident should be reported to

- though they would formally record it in their register.

 

Otherwise he was prepared to dismiss ther builder, or move him off my job.

But I don’t want to damage a young lad’s livelihood.

 

In my experience, when accidents like this happen its usually because of systemic failures that enable individual errors to happen,

 

I’m worried that the company has been a bit dismissive of what I fear is a really serious incident, and that I have an obligation to make sure that lessons are properly learned so that no one else is put at risk like this.

Next time they might not be so lucky.

 

Would welcome others’ thoughts and advice on what I should do next?

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it sounds serious but sometimes accidents happen.

The fact is that the director of the company is going to fix any damage caused and is apologetic says he is a reputable person.

In all fairness no injury's were sustained but they are recording it as a "near miss".

 

Unless you can prove negligent work practices in the reasons why the steel beam came lose then I dont think there is anywhere to go with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a GOGW could be reflected in their final invoice ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until floor is down in the loft, the 1st floor should be a no entry zone when builders are at work.

Same for all the perimeter of the scaffolding at ground level.

Standard practice.

 

In other words they should prevent access to the staircase leading to 1st floor and if it is essential to get there (to use the toilet for example), builders should stop working and wait until it's clear.

 

There's plenty to do on a loft conversion job, so they don't really need to stop working, but just do something else which would make it impossible to let anything through the ceiling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they admitted this.

 

Apparently the builder thought my wife was not in the house (she was, as were my children).

 

At no point was she told that no one should be upstairs whilst the beam was being moved.

 

The other thing the company said happened which shouldn’t have done was that the beam was broughtt high at an angle through the window space to the floor - where is was rested against a joist.

 

Apparently the beams should be moved low and flat - not at an angle - lest they then slide through the ceiling (as this one did).

 

Finally the company said they normally put the floors down before they put the high beams in - but for some reason the build went out of sequence.

 

They’ve been quite open about all this - but it seems to me quite negligent all the same,

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call the HSE as the building co seem to ahve some very unsafe practices by the looks of things. The HSE bod can order them to remedy unsafe working procedures but will certainly rip a new hole for them for their lack of written procedures. saying they normally do somehting but didnt is no excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the other thing I would be minded to do is to claim on their insurance rather than letting the director settle. If they refuse to countenace this then you start off with your insurer and tell them the full story I dont believe the words of the director and this will test them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the other thing I would be minded to do is to claim on their insurance rather than letting the director settle. If they refuse to countenace this then you start off with your insurer and tell them the full story I dont believe the words of the director and this will test them.

 

I don’t think there is anything to claim for: no one was actually injured (luckily) and the builders will repair the ceiling as part of the broader loft works.

 

I wasn’t sure whether we - as customers, rather than employers or employees - could report the incident to the HSE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...