I have just looked up Building regulation Part Q which came into effect on October 1st 2015. Windows and doors Part Q is mandatory for most new buildings. Part Q does not apply to replacement windows and doors. PAS24 is the certificate with details the physical specs of the door to withstand attack. The certificate proves the manufacturer has had the door tested and has past the test. As this installation was for a new residential building and the door and windows were first time installed (not replacing existing ones), the installer would have known they had to comply, must comply, without me telling them. So I maintain, it is their liability.

Thanks BF. The only written instruction was my signature accepting their quotation. I agree I relied entirely on them to come up with a compliant solution. I think that is the natural expectation of all customers. So are you saying they might only be liable to cover their labour costs of removing the lower spec parts and replacing with the compliant parts, and that I would be responsible for the actual cost of the new parts? Or the difference in cost between the old and new parts. ie the old glass panel say £200, the replacement say £300, so I pay £100 or £300?

I invited a long established local windows company to quote for the supply and installation of two windows and a door. The business owner surveyed the property, which was a former attached storeroom (at the time was just a shell) which we were converting into a studio flat. The storeroom had never had windows, so we had a builder create new openings. He also repositioned the old doorway. The window company came to measure up and quote. I accepted the quote. Then they supplied and installed, and issued the Fensa certificate when they finished. Sometime later, when the project was complete we had the final inspection from building control to issue the Completion Certificate. However, there was a document missing which was a PAS24 document. This certified the specs of the door and window met the standard for compliance. I asked the windows firm to issue the document but they could not issue it because they had installed standard doors and windows which did not have a high enough spec to meet PAS24 compliance. They argue that I did not tell them the windows and door needed to comply with building regs, and had I of done, they would have quoted me for higher spec products. I argue that as a member of the public, I had invited them to survey, measure up and quote for two windows and a door. When the survey was done, it is they who would have known the products needed to comply (as all new installations must), but they quoted for only a standard product. They did not quote for two versions (cheaper one that would not comply and a dearer one that would). They did not ask me questions to ascertain whether building control were involved and did not explain the options. They simply provided their recommendation for my needs, and supplied a drawn plan. I accepted the quote with the full expectation that the products they quoted for would naturally comply with current regs. I am of the view that they had a duty to ensure compliance and if there was any doubt they should have asked questions to make sure. They now want £1000 to replace the glass, locks & barrels to upgrade to PAS24 compliance. After some emailing to and fro, their final position is they reject all responsibility. My question is: Who is responsible? Should I have checked the quote suited my purpose (ie the products would comply with PAS24, even though I had never heard of it), before signing the contract? Or should they have ensured the product they were recommending and quoting for was fit for the purpose, and therefore ask me the right questions to ascertain? Is it my fault or theirs? What's my next move?

Thanks UB, I thought that was the case. Because I haven't actually suffered all the loss yet, and can't really quantify it in advance. It will still be hard to quantify it annually. I wondered whether the solution might be to try to negotiate and issue the summons in six years time. But your solution seems much better. One more letter before action, to sue for the losses already incurred. They will refuse. I get a hearing. If I win, they will then be under pressure to negotiate the rest or face an annual summons. I checked Google Earth for earlier images. Just before my battery ran out. The image latest image they have is one year earlier. Interestingly, since that image two extra bollards have been installed at the far end of the pull in. The pull in has also got a fair bit bigger due to traffic use and erosion. But most importantly, I can't see the stump in the older image, which suggests the ground around it had not yet eroded away........therefore the council perhaps have an excuse for failing to spot it as a potential hazard.

That is a great point. I will look up google earth, quite often the images are a few years out of date.

Dorset Council have refused all liability. They say the stump was not on the highway and their duty is limited to ensure regular inspections of the highways and if nothing is wrong, they have discharged their duty. Furthermore, the lay by is not an official lay by but more of an area where people, over time, have created the pull in. Seems strange that the area looks like a tarmac surface and they don't think it is part of the highway. It is obvious that the stump was once part of a road sign (probably the oncoming vehicles sign) which was cut off at ground level and moved further back from the road side. The earth around the stump has subsequently been eroded by weather and traffic bumping up the grass verge and the stump fully exposed. If the council did regular highway inspections, they obviously failed to see the stump just by driving past slowly and the inspections could not have been that good. I have made a claim on my insurance policy and the matter has been settled with them costing £2500 plus vat. But because they have said the accident was my fault as no other vehicle was involved, I have lost 6 years of no claims bonus. My premium this year was increased by £97 because of that, and also, my wife's premium for her car was increased to add me as a named driver by £50. It seems that I will have to suffer these higher premiums for six years. I have also lost £250 excess. I hold the council entirely to blame and would have preferred to not have my insurers involved, but I reckoned that I had a duty to reduce the claim to the council, by claiming first under my policy. Interestingly, having written to the council to make my original complaint, they immediately employed a team of workers to remove the stump. So, I am now preparing to issue a summons for my uninsured losses. Does anybody have any idea how I calculate the loss of my no claims discount for the next 6 years? It seems too easy that it might be just calling it £150 a year, because of course, next year it will only be five years lost and reducing to only one year in year six. Furthermore, I haven't actually suffered those other premium increases yet. Also, what principles of the law do I base my claim on and how do I word it?

Scan0009.pdfHope this scan of the images works.

I drove over a stump of a metal post concreted into the verge of the road as I was driving onto a gravel layby on a country road near Farnham, Dorset . The post was approx 6 inches high and 3 inches wide. It looked as though it should have had a plastic warning post attached to it matching the one at the other end of the layby. I didn't notice driving over it, I guess it cleared the front bumber and missed the wheel. However, as I reversed off and back into the road (I was towing a trailer at the time), the stump caught the inside edge of my front bumber and tore it off. Might I have a claim against the council? I would rather that than make an insurance claim, although I guess I could make the insurance claim and look to the council for the excess and possibly uninsured losses if my premium or no claims is affected. A local resident noticed and said he had seen it happen before and they had tried to get the stump removed for years. How should I proceed?

Today I was driving a hired Luton van. I saw front end loader tractor forks at about 10 feet height enter the road from a country lane. I braked hard. The driver of the tractor kept driving these forward until he could see whether the road was clear to his right. He immediately tried to reverse when he saw me almost on top of him. I could not swerve to avoid him due to oncoming traffic. The near side panel of the Luton hit the forks which tore a slice (well above the cab) through the side panel for about 6 feet. The driver of the tractor said he couldn't see past the hedgerow so had to pull out more. This is why the forks were well into the width of the road. The contract I have with the hire company state that the hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage. I expect the hire company will claim substantial repair costs from me rather than claim on their insurance. Of course, they will probably keep my deposit in any case. Although I expect maybe the circumstances of the accident are not quite what the clause was designed for, which is probably driving under low tree branches or hitting the corner of a house due to the camber of the road. I won't get to speak with them until morning to find out exactly how they will play this out. I have a feeling I might have to claim against my personal motor insurance. I would certainly expect 100% blame to be the tractor driver. Does anyone have any urgent advise before I speak with the hire firm.

They have a bunch of trading names which appear to be separate companies. ALE Marketing Ltd which trades as Joes Doors Swansea, Joes Doors Manchester, Joes Doors Winchester but ALE Marketing is a dormant company yet Joes Doors are trading. They have Joes Doors.co.uk, www. Joes Doors.co.uk, Joes Doors Ltd, www.smieykitchens.com, Quartzize Ltd, Quartzize Worktops Ltd. The registered ltd company number for Joes Doors (shown on their website) actually belongs to ALE Marketing. ALE are the initials of the director or major shareholder. They advertise on TV and their websites to find customers, send their salesman around and get them to sign a contract with either Quartzize or Joes Doors or other trading name, then Quartzize send my son the instruction to fit. It is all smoke and mirrors but I guess the dormant companies are simply to stop other companies registering an identical name. It is difficult to know exactly who you are doing business with, but the only company that sends my son the instruction is Quartzize Worktops Ltd. They have also been the only company that have paid him at times the various customers have not, or if additional payments have been due..............this has happened regardless of which company the customer has been dealing with.....in other words, Quartzize have been paying my son for invoices he has raised to them, even when their customer belongs to Joes Doors. It seems odd that one company is paying the bills belonging to another. I reckon HMRC would be interested.

My son fits kitchens. Quartzize Worktops Ltd email him the instructions to install the kitchens for their customers. The Quartzize contract with their customers states the customer pays the installation fee directly to the installer when the job is finished. Some jobs remained unfinished as Quartzize supplied damaged worktops. Quartzize eventually supply a good worktop and gets another installer to finish the work. The customer pays the second installer. My son doesn't get paid. My son issues a money claim to Quartzize for £2000 unpaid work. They defend saying that two customers were not their customers, but belong to one of their many other companies eg 'Joes Doors' or 'Smiley Kitchens' . The director has over a dozen trading names, some ltd, some dormant. He says that part of the summons should have been issued to the other company or that my son should be suing their customer directly for his installation fee because it is them that should be paying my son. My son's instructions to do all the installations always come from Quartzize. My son has never entered into a contract with Quartzize customers directly, he doesn't have a formal contract with Quartzize either, only a very basic letter stating the amount of his fee as a commission of the total job and to collect that fee from their customer when the job is finished. It seems to me, the contract their customers have regardless of whether it is with Quartzize or Joes Doors is irrelevant. At best they show they are in breach with Quartzize or Joes Doors by failing to pay, or they are not in breach if they do pay the final installer. However, my son remains unpaid for the work he has done up to the fitting of the worktops and he is right to have issued a claim against the company that is instructing him to do the work. Documents prior to the hearing are to be exchanged this week. Any pointers would be interesting to hear.

It happened to me. Hurry up and get the tile repaired, before the scaffolding is down. The scaffolders do not want to take the scaffolding down just to take it back to their yard. At the moment you are storing it for free for them. They hope it will stay with you until they need it for the next job, they will then take it down and then straight to the next job. You need to be dealing with the contractor who instructed the scaffolding firm. Issue the contractor a 7 day notice before action. Copy the scaffolding firm is as second defendants and sue them too. They will hate that and you would probably lose against them as your contract is with the contractor.................but they might get the contractor to settle any outstanding affairs with them if any..........or just take it down anyway. Add in your storage costs. Issue the summons (hopefully you have already issued them a notice before action). They will come and take the scaffolding down eventually but will hate paying you a storage fee and hate having a hearing. Get your hearing even if the scaffolding has gone. Let the court decide about whether you win a storage fee. If you lose it will only cost you a £35 issue fee and maybe a £50 hearing fee and worth every penny just to know you fought back.

They removed the adverse reports the same day as making the payment which included the issue fee. They used their own legal dept. Ben Spivey, Legal Council Retail Litigation, Santander, Deansgate, Manchester. I ticked the Paid box on MCOL to discontinue the claim. I am disgusted with their tactics. I had written letters to their Chief Exec, N Bostock but all replies were made by Michelle Anderson Senior Complaints Manager. Everything absolutely refuting their contribution to the whole problem and refusing to cancel the fees and removing the reports. I issued a formal complaint to the FSO, but made it a few days too late. Santander rejected the compliant as out of time and refused to allow the FSO to consider it further. I issued Notice Before Action and the summons, and they paid up within within 3 weeks. Seems to me this is their whole strategy. To fight to the bitter end and hoping their customers will not bother to pursue. Then settle the ones that do, because it is cheaper in the long wrong. Little disappointing to not have it heard in court, but not much I could do about that. You are right about MCOL not having enough room for detailed particulars. I squeezed it in by making it all one paragraph without spacing lines.

Threat of sending in the bailiff got them to look into it. They say they did not get a copy of the judgment even though I also sent them a copy. Payment is on it's way.

Summons did the trick. They acknowledged the summons to say they were defending the whole claim. Then I had an email saying they denied liability but would settle the amount claimed in full as a gesture of goodwill but refused to remove the adverse reports. I refused their offer. Then I had an email saying they agreed to pay in full AND remove the adverse reports. So I call that a good win, although I didn't get the thrill of a court hearing and a judgment. One thing though. Their offer was on the condition I would advise the court that I was discontinuing the claim. I agreed saying I would do so once payment was made. Today, I am told the cheque is on its way but would I discontinue the claim in order to not waste any more of the courts time. The question I have is that when entering details on MCOL, the options are Paid, Discontinued or Settled. It seems to me I should be marking the claim as paid or even settled rather than discontinued. Is there a benefit to Santander in trying to get me to click the discontinue box before I actually get the cheque? And why are they asking me to discontinue in the first place rather than just mark the claim as paid? Should I be smelling a rat?

Do I send in the bailiff to Santander or issue a summons to Santander? Or maybe I just tell the court? I gave Santander until 4pm 17 March to pay, so expect to do one or the other. Just not sure which.

1. On 16 April 2021 the claimant visited Santander at xxxxxxxx to close his Credit Card account xxxxxxxx. 2.The cashier requested £xxxxx to pay the balance due. 3.The claimant paid in the requested amount. 4. The defendant failed to close the account as the amount paid in was 11p too high. 5. The defendant also failed to place a block on further transactions and later accepted (rather than return unpaid) two payments totaling £XXX 6. The claimant sought to pay this sum but was unable to access his account as the defendant had blocked his online sign in details. 7. The defendant then charged late payment charges and interest. 8. Correspondence ensued where the claimant sought to make payment subject to the charges being waived. 9. The defendant refused and applied adverse reports to the claimants credit reference file. 10. The claimant paid the balance in full under duress of additional adverse reports. 11. The claimant asks the court order the reports be deleted and seeks repayment of the charges, £15 costs and compensation at the discretion of the court.

Summons now issued.

I won a third party debt order against Santander in Jan 22. It was only for £109. They have failed to pay. What do I do now?

My wife and I went in branch to withdraw all funds and close our Santander bank accounts and to pay off the balance and close my credit card account. Having closed the current accounts, the cashier told me how much was needed to settle the credit card account and I paid the figure requested (around £3500) and closed the account. A few days later I received a letter from the branch manager saying they did not actually close the account because it still had 11p as a positive balance in it. Somehow they didn't know what to do with the 11p they owed me. Later, I received a phone call from customer services saying an Amazon debit had been applied for £9 but they would absorb the debit . Then another call saying Tesco had also had a £120 debit applied but they would not absorb that one. In short, they would not close the account unless I cleared new debit. These payments were online payments which had been in the pipeline for a few weeks but which had not been processed by the retailers until the items were actually sent. I had forgotten about them, but would have expected them to have been rejected by Santander (the retailers then complain to me for a new payment method). Instead Santander honoured them a week after they should have closed the account in the first place and refunded my 11p. During the phone call, I argued the amounts should have been rejected, but I would pay them straight away. I ended the call and went online to transfer the funds, only to find that because my current accounts had been closed, my login details had been blocked and I could not access my accounts to check the exact amount due to pay off the credit card account. So I did not make the payment that day. I tried again later and also failed, then a few days later went back to the branch. I was now told that I now had a late payment charge added to the amount. After much correspondence (effectively me stating I was happy to pay the amount due and would do so when they waived the charges and now interest), they continued to refuse and made monthly late payment and interest charges and suplied adverse reports to Experian. Eventually, they sent me a default warning notice and gave me two weeks to pay. I decided to pay the amount of the two transactions and the charges and interest, under duress and only to avoid the default notice being issued. They accepted the payment and I received a letter stating the account was now zero.............but it would still not be closed for 6 months. I then checked my credit reference file and have found they have lodged 5 adverse reports of late payment. I complained to the FSO but my complaint was made 6 days beyond the 6 months deadline for making the report after Santanders final response. So, I am now going to issue the summons for repayment of around £68 in late payment and interest charges. But more importantly, I want the judge to examine whether the account should have been closed on the date and time I paid it off. And whether Santander should simply have sent me an 11p cheque rather than keep the account open. It seems to me, that because I was unable to clear these later two payments because I had been blocked from login on, the issue was caused by Santander. The question I need help with is how to word the claim form. Whether I seek for the judge to make a declaration ordering Santander to remove the adverse reports and repay the money. Or whether I sue for the money and aske for the judge to order the removal of the adverse reports. Of course, If I win the claim for the small amount of money, I would think that would imply the adverse reports should be removed. I just need to make sure my claim actually details the cause of action properly. I am more interested in having the reports removed than the money. Any thoughts gratefully received.

Thankyou. Although I couldn't see any reference to what happens if additional funds are paid in after the original lesser sum is frozen. I believe such funds are not affected by the debt order. Assuming I am awarded the £100 at least, I shall use that to apply for a charging order on the defendants house.

Santander have now confirmed they applied the debt order on 24 November. If the defendant's wages (or other funds) were paid in after that date, would these extra amounts not be secured against the debt order and therefore not made available for the court to allocate against the judgment?

Santander.

I won a default judgment for £2000 in Sept 21 and applied to the court for a third party debt order from the defendants bank (rather than send in the bailiff). The court accepted the application and ordered the bank to 'freeze' the defendants account to the value of the order and to advise myself and the court of the values. The final decision whether to release the funds to me would be decided at a hearing (in two weeks time). The order appeared to have been ignored for 3 months despite me chasing the bank a few times to supply the details. Today, I received confirmation from the bank that they have secured £100 from the defendants account. It seems a shame there appears so little money (less than the costs of the application) in the account. However, what bothers me is that maybe there was plenty of funds in the account in Oct, Nov or December if the order had been dealt with within the 7 days the court gave the bank to do so. Is there anything I can do to find out why the bank ignored the court order for so long and whether there might have been more available had they dealt with the order on time? I suppose I could send in the bailiff or apply for an attachment of earnings (although I have no idea if the defendant works). Any ideas greatfully accepted.

Well, the hearing did not go my way and the judgment was set aside and the claim struck out. The judgment was set aside because the judge felt they had a good prospect of defending the case. He based that decision on two points. The first, that their contract terms and conditions stated they do not offer guaranteed services, and I had agreed to those terms. I explained that Parcelforce Express 48 contained defining features and benefits which had not been supplied and argued saying the contractual terms could not trump consumer law and therefore the consumer laws which I quoted should be examined. I included Contra Proferentem and Misrepresentation to deal with the ambiguity and validity of the contract along with the Consumer Rights Act and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations to support the misdescription of the product, but It all fell on deaf ears, because of the second point. The second and fatal point was that I could not quantify the loss which I stated as £250. I based this loss on the extra costs I was now forced to pay for trackable postage in order to stop ebay defects being applied to my ebay account and so lose my Top Rated Plus status. The problem was that I had not actually suffered those losses and was now only paying those costs to reduce risk of what might happen in the future, but had not and might not happen at all. So I had not actually suffered the loss I had claimed. The request to strike out was made informally by the solicitors and the judge agreed because I would have a hard job in successfully winning the second point. He accepted I might have an argument based on contract but that was all, but had to base his judgment on all the matters of the claim. He was quite disapproving of the defendants 'bland' excuse for saying they had not received the claim form. Initially I thought I was onto a winner when the defendants solicitor stated they often find lots of claim forms don't turn up. He seemed to agree the issue was one to do with one concerning the defendants mailroom. ( I was unable to put my point across that they had wasted two weeks and incurred expensive litigation costs in that time trying to get a copy of the claim form, which they might well have had in that pigeon hole somewhere. Their suggestion was that they couldn't link the default judgment with me, as the judgment only contained my name. This was misleading the court as the judgment contained my name and address and postcode and therefore they could easily have found the details (and probably did) . This morning I actually phoned their helpdesk and asked for the details of my order and they found them immediately upon entering my postcode and checking my name and first line of my address. It was that easy. To think the defendants did not do that was unbelievable. They chose to do much cost bearing work instead. Anyway, I could tell pretty well from the off it wasn't going my way and I was limited to answering questions raised by the judge rather than presenting my points. The whole thing was late starting and felt rushed, made worse by the judge saying time did not permit him to look more closely at the contract. Having pronounced his judgment, the silver lining then came. The solicitor asked for costs but the judge very quickly refused them. The solicitor asked if the judge had seen the costs schedule in the bundle (which was now over 100 pages thick). He said he hadn't seen it but wasn't allowing any costs. So I lost the claim, which cost £35 to issue and £75 for the warrant. But actually I have gathered some great information from my research and studying the defence arguments. That will certainly he helpful in my other more straight forward claim. (I might even get a hearing with the same judge). The solicitor had a schedule of costs amounting to £3278 of which they were hoping to claim £505 from me.....................Somehow I think it is they (or Interparcel) who were the real losers today. They really should have agreed to refund me the £10.56 postage for taking 8 days to deliver a 48 hour package