Jump to content

farmlama

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by farmlama

  1. It has taken a long time as the hearing was delayed due to COVID, but this was finally heard this morning by District Judge Abraham at luton court. the judge found that there was not a case for denied boarding, however he found that there was a case for negligence as there was not sufficient time allowed for all passengers to arrive at the gate and the gate closed too early. The cost of flights for the following day was awarded along with the application fee and hearing fee. No compensation was awarded for the denied boarding and we missed a day of our holiday, but still a win as I got my additional costs back and it’s hopefully a lesson for EasyJet and maybe they will review procedures to allow more notice of the gate number in future.
  2. Are you saying that you do not take the breaks, but they deduct the hours regardless? For the hours you are saying you work, you should be taking breaks
  3. Quick question, but from reading this, I get the impression that you have not had the body works carried out, is this correct? if you have an estimate but not had the works carried out, then you have not yet sustained this loss yet and it may be questioned why you didn’t get it repaired in the last two years and that as so long has passed that it does not really need any repair. If the estimate is from a main dealer, it is likely that a local garage would also be able to repair for a much lower price too so if you was to get it repaired, your loss may be much less than previously thought.
  4. But if you decided to use a rental for a few months, that is not the fault of the caravan park and the pitch will still be available for you. If you are not happy with the settlement as you feel they are not offering enough to cover the like for like replacement of a used caravan and all the additional costs such as removal of the old one, then you need to address that with your insurers.
  5. Can you not buy a used caravan though as the settlement should cover that. Your caravan was used so the insurance won’t pay for a new one, but you should be paid wnough to get a like for like old one and you can ask if they would cover costs to instal. But the pitch is still available for you to use, so you have not lost that and won’t be entitled to a refund
  6. If the caravan has been written off, have you not been given a settlement cheque to buy another. So you can get a new caravan to use on the pitch. If you decide against getting a new caravan and using the pitch, then that is your choice and neither the insurance company or caravan park owe you anything if you have been paid the funds to get a replacement and the pitch is available for you to use as it is your choice not to use it as nobody is preventing you from using it.
  7. When you get a replacement caravan, can you not have it on the same pitch and therefore you will still have use of it?? You cannot claim any losses from the park that get settled by your insurers as the loss will no longer be yours. If your insurance company want to try and recover from the park then they can try.
  8. I used to work as a tree officer for a local Authority, I now work as an insurance officer at a different local Authority. Firstly the issue with the tree tree is not that it wasn’t planted deep enough, trees are planted as little saplings and pretty much all have a similar size root ball at that time and will be planted to the same sort of depth, as they grow the root system forms and usually different types of tree will have a different root formation, certain types of tree are known for having surface roots that will crack pathways etc, cherry trees are quite bad for this. The roots are not at the surface because of how they were planted, but just because of how the roots have formed, nobody planted a mature tree and placed each root too close to the surface. Secondly on the tree, you have a right to cut back anything that is encroaching onto your land, this includes roots, however you need to be cautious about causing damage to the tree or effecting it’s stability as you could become liable for damage caused, if you cut back the roots I would advise that you alert the council to what you are doing. If the tree is removed, it is unlikely that the council will dig up and remove every tree root especially those growing on private land. The tree might be deemed too important to the area to warrant removal or may even be protected (you will need to check this before cutting any roots as you will deed to apply for permission to do any works on a protected tree). in regards to the claim for the damage to your driveway, there is no automatic right to compensation and if they do agree to pay, they might only offer a partial payment. You need to prove all the damage that you are claiming and you cannot be in a position of betterment (if your driveway would have had an expected lifespan of 30 years and is 20 years old, then by having a new one now would mean you benefit from a further 20 years use etc). Also you say you moved into the property in 2017 so it is possible the damage was already present at that time, although may have worsened. If you purchased the property in a damaged state then you need to evidence that you have suffered a loss, especially as you are saying that the driveway cannot just be repaired as it’s printed concrete and it needs replacing in full, basically a small amount of damage would require the same cost of repair as a lot of damage and it could be argued that you have no claim as you will not have suffered any additional financial loss. If the previous owner had been reporting damage to the property, this will not help your claim as it will show that you purchased it already damaged. If you say that the damage was not there when you purchased the property, you will need to provide evidence of that. asking the MP to look into things might not help. The council will most likely pay claims like this from public money and they have a duty to protect those funds. They cannot pay claims because an MP gets involved, it just means a formal explanation will be sent via the MP as well as it instead of to you. If you get a claim paid after contacting an MP it would usually mean that the claim would have been paid anyway and the MP involvement had nothing to do with the outcome. The council will need to provide a fair and consistent service to everyone and it would not be fair to favour one person because the MP was involved. i don’t know what council you are dealing with and I imagine that different councils will have different approaches where some will be quite firm and others more relaxed, but it is a bit of a complicated issue as it isn’t a simple case if there being damage and so you get paid for a new driveway. Also whatever you do, do not be silly and pay for repairs with cash, make sure you can provide proof like a bank statement showing you have paid for the work or your claim is going to look suspicious.
  9. I just wanted to update on this for anyone interested that may have experienced similar. following the kind advice about the European consumer files on denied boarding, I decided to issue proceedings. initially I contacted bracers easyJet to go through their complaints procedure, their initial response was to blame Luton airport on the short gate announcement time. i then made complaint to Luton airport who advised they had followed EasyJet’s instructions on the timeframe to announce the gates. I returned to easyJet with my complaint and they admitted that it was their decision to have a short gate window but they rely on their terms and conditions that say customers need to be at the gate 30 minutes before the flight time. i issued proceedings and the claim was due to be heard on paper at the start of June, this has been delayed due to covid19 and I am awaiting a new date, I called the court recently and have been told they are very busy right now so cannot provide a timeframe, but the case is still currently scheduled to be heard on paper only. easyjets defence is that they did not deny boarding and that their terms and conditions state passengers must be at the gate 30 minutes before the flight and should aim to arrive at the gate 40 minutes before the flight. i have claimed denied boarding due to the unreasonable short timeframe that the gate was open. I have also claimed that the terms and conditions are unfair as they state a set time for passengers to be at the gate, but do not place any responsibility on easyJet to announce the gate time to allow sufficient time for customers to reach the gate comfortably. In my case they only announced the gate that was located a 15 minutes walk away, 5 minutes before the terms require passengers to be at the gate and so would be unrealistic and unreasonable to hold passengers to that term. I have also stated a breach of contract on easyJet’s side as the terms state that passengers should arrive at the gate 40 minutes before the flight, which implies the gate should be announced with enough time to allow this, as the gate was only announced 35 minutes before the flight, they have broken the implied term here. i will provide a further update once the claim has been heard as it may help others that have experienced similar. I have covered most of my defence in my witness statement, I have tried to attach screen shots of this and have tried to avoid the bits with any personal info so the start and end are missed, but you kinda get the idea I have also quoted Niall Caldwell vs easyJet as case law too docs1.pdf
  10. A high hedge would mean two or more coniferous trees and therefore high hedges legislation would apply. A row of trees can be regarded as a hedge regardless of height
  11. Also we do not know what council we are speaking about so it is unclear if the council housing is a separate entity. Take for example the bourough council where I live (I am also in a council house). About 10 years ago the housing section formed into a private company that was separate from the council itself, however for whatever reason the private company didn’t work and the services then were taken back over by the council, and so where I live, the council and the landlord are one and the same, this however would not change their position on responsibility for a private tree. I was a tree officer in the borough I live and we did deal with issues relating to trees in council tenants own gardens (as the council were the owners of them trees they had a responsibility) but anything on private land wouldn’t be considered unless it was high hedges and then the complainer would need to pay a fee as the op has been advised here
  12. But the trees are not the councils property to deal with, they are the neighbors property. If the op was private renting, you wouldn’t expect the private landlord to cut down someone else’s trees and it’s no different because the council are the landlord. Yes the council have responsibilities for their property, but these trees aren’t their property so you seem to be providing misleading advice here about the social housing aspect. the councillor may have some sway to get the council to take enforcement action, but this will be nothing to do with it being a council house and isn’t guaranteed as there is no legal duty for the council do do so and the council will likely have policies where they aim to provide a consistent service to all which could mean that they do not get involved in any neighbor disputes even where they have the right (but not obligation) to do so. Each council will have different policies etc, so there is a slim chance they will intervene, I’m just being realistic here so that the op knows what to expect and doesn’t waste time pursuing a lost cause.
  13. Essentially while a council may in theory be able to enforce works, there is no legal duty for them to do so and most councils will not offer this service as they have such limited resources as it is and if they offer it to you, they will need to offer it to others with private disputes and it opens up a whole new can of worms. in addition, if they were to take enforcement action, this will be a complete separate department to the housing team and the status of your tenancy doesn’t come into it. the duty to ensure the tree is correctly maintained is on the tree owner and should the tree fall then and damages will be the responsibility of the tree owner if they are found negligent
  14. But if the trees are dangerous, that is an issue for you to take up with the owner of the trees. the council in their role as your landlord do not have any more power than a private landlord or private home owner would have to enforce another private owner to do something. thiis is a civil matter neighbor dispute, not a tenancy issue with the council.
  15. I feel that people are focusing too much on the OPs property being a council house and putting responsibility on the council to resolve this. imagine for a moment that the OPs house is privately owned, now what powers would they have to take action on the trees? Pretty much none without taking the tree owner to court right. Well as the trees are privately owned, that is the same power that the council have right now. the information with the £375 will be inline with high hedges legislation as this will be the only power the council will have and it is common for there to be a charge for this. this is not a social housing issue, but a neighbor dispute with a private homeowner. i used to work as a tree officer for a local authority and from experience have seen that people’s idea of dangerous and what is actually dangerous are two different issues. A councils power to enforce tree works are also limited and will usually only be where a private tree poses a risk to the highway, not to another property as that is a civil matter (even where the council own the 2nd property). With regards to risk to underground pipes, this is something you will be unlikely to successfully argue as various studies have found that unless a tree is planted on top of the pipe and crush it, the roots will not cause damage, but rather only enter through already damaged areas as they are opportunistic, any tree roots in drains are usually a secondary issue where a pipe had existing damage and to resolve it will require a permanent repair to the pipe to prevent recurrence. the only options i see here are to calculate the height allowed under high hedges legislation (it varies depending on what direction the property faces , the location of hedges etc) and try to enforce that which will involve the fee. Otherwise there is little you can do as the private homeowner has a right to have trees in their garden although they may be liable if they were to cause damage to your property (such as a shed) or the councils property in the future.
  16. If your solicitor doesn’t see the claim as having a good chance of success then I would see that as a bad sign. is there a chance that you have misread the inspection reports and gotten confused to convince yourself that you should push this? councils will record minor defects to monitor them even when they aren’t requiring repair right then. Also are you sure that the defect recorded in may 2018 was the same and not a different one that was repaired? your accident happened in February when it’s not uncommon for potholes to open up or get larger because of freezing weather and if this had happened after their last inspection (I assume that may was the last making this a minor road with annual inspections so not hard to believe that it may have deteriorated since theme) and there were no outstanding reports from people, then the council will have a defence to rely on. if you issue in the court, you will need to prove your claim and evidence that the council knew about this hazard (if a minor defect is recorded on their indpection, this will not evidence they knew about a hazard, but go in their favour as it will show they are monitoring small defects).
  17. Unless the stairs were faulty, I’m not sure how successful a claim against the landlord would be. also if the stairs were faulty, but that fault had developed in between required inspections and nobody else had reported it to the landlord, then a claim may not be successful. if there was a dangerous fault with the stairs and the landlord didn’t carry out required inspections, or they had been made aware of the issue and did nothing to correct it, then a claim m may be successful.
  18. If they try to pursue the matter, then as a claimant they need to evidence their claim. The things I would be looking st right now are: Was there a check in inventory, if so how thorough is this? Does it detail information on certain bulbs and include this picture in the bathroom? Does it go into detail the condition of cabinets? has evidence of the alleged damage been provided and evidence of the repair costs, what element will need to be deducted for wear and tear. has the landlord provided evidence of this alleged insurance inspection? I would question why the landlord only noted a few minor issues and part returned your deposit. Is it possible that the property sustained some flood damage after you handed it over? Some of the items claimed appear to be for you not maintaining the central heating/ heating tank. Surely these are landlord obligations and this is evidence of his own negligence?
  19. As the amount he is claiming is so low, this would be a small claim and covered by part 45 rules regarding costs. Meaning the only costs he would be able to claim if he issued proceedings and won would be limited to the court fee. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs i Assume you have not yet opened s “not as described” case on eBay. I suspect the seller refunded via PayPal to prevent you from doing this as it would effect his seller ratings. if you are able to open a case, then do that now and eBay will provide a returns label to you and charge the seller for this. As the seller is being nasty, I would advise contacting eBay to report him and to get them to step in. also I’m pretty sure that courts accept email as a valid form of written contact, so his childish refusal to acknowledge your email would not stand up
  20. Firstly have the supermarket written to say that they have accepted liability or is it a without prejudice offer? They could have investigated the incident and found they have a solid defence, but in order to save further costs in defending a claim, they have made a low goodwill gesture to settle as to save costs later. I work in insurance and defend liability claims. From my experience, the big firms of solicitors are not that great and over 50% of claims will be handled terribly. They tend to use general template letters, but do not edit them in anyway to fit the individual claim, so often they are sending letters that have nothing to do with the incident circumstance. They also get things wrong that can reflect badly on the claimant (for example mr x was unemployed at time of incident but later started working, solicitors have their facts wrong and keep saying claimant was working at the time and want to claim loss of earning for the period, despite claimant telling us that they did not work at the time so this does not apply). They also very regularly will bring the claim against the wrong party, or refer to the defendant incorrectly (had one claim in which they kept referring to the defendant as McDonalds, we have nothing to do with McDonald’s at all). The last claim we defended at court, the solicitors had handled it so badly, misadvised the claimants and messed up sending in documents such as witness statements and a court bundle, that the judge actually advised the claimants that they should look to seek damages from their solicitors. In addition, when injury claims are settled, they are not looked at any differently in regards to offer made if there is legal representation or not. The same calculations will be used to take into account details of the injury and any medical history that could be contributing (for example, someone claiming a back injury but who has a history of back problems would likely get a reduced offer). You need to think about whether pushing the issue is in the best interest for this elderly relative too, you said that claiming wasn’t their idea and it was family members that have pushed this issue. By pushing further, you risk getting no settlement at all and you guarantee prolonging any stress for your relative. If you do not agree with the offer, why don’t you write and ask how they have come to that figure, and advise of what you think of what region it should be and why you think that. Also ask if they have admitted a breach of liability or if this offer is made on a without prejudice basis.
  21. You said you didn’t have a financial loss so what monies are you instructing a debt collector to collect. If the council did not respond, they may not have received any proceedings and can apply to have the judgement set aside. Without giving more information about your complaint, nobody here can help you.
  22. You need planning permission to carry out works to trees in conservation areas regardless of whether there is a tpo or not. It is free to apply for through the council and if you advise that it is to re-route the easement, that may be taken into Consideration, however they may still decline if they think the tree is too valuable to the area.
  23. So from what I can understand, the eu regulations article 3.2 say we will have been denied boarding as we had checked in (and passed security) over 45 minutes before departure and it was only the unreasonable operational reasons (limited gate information time) that we struggled to make it to the gate, and therefore the regulations apply?
  24. The issue is though that they stopped boarding 15 minutes after the gate number was given, despite it being a 15 minute walk to the gate for an average person. It took us more than 15 minutes to walk there so didn’t have any chance. When we arrived at the gate the board still said final call too and not gate closed. The next day when we got our flight, they still were allowing people to board 5 minutes before so this clearly isn’t a strict rule and they could have allowed us to board along with the other passengers that were turned away especially as they were aware that only a 15 minute window was given to get to the gate and board which was so far away.
×
×
  • Create New...