Jump to content
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ethel Street last won the day on January 10

Ethel Street had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,377 Excellent

About Ethel Street

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is the address registered for your car with DVLA - ie, the address shown on the V5C document, the log book - the address where you have been living since January 2018? If you have moved and not told DVLA that would explain why you hadn't received anything.
  2. 22 years sounds like a ridiculous time to take but there might have been legitimate reasons. It can happen. Do you have a copy of the Will? Can you clarify 3 things: 1. Are the solicitors named in the Will as an Executor? Or did the Executors in the Will appoint them to act for the Executors? 2. Who are the Executors named in the Will? Is your sister one? 3. Is your sister a 'residual beneficiary'? ie one of the people who is entitled to a share of your Uncle's remaining Estate after all specific bequests and expenses have been paid out. Who are the other 'residual beneficiaries'?
  3. Baliffs and plumbers are not comparable. Baliffs carry out public law functions and so have statutory duties, plumbers do not. But even if plumbers do have (so far unidentified) statutory duties relevant to this case it wouldn't help OP in the slightest. OP's plumber is insolvent and his only worthwhile asset appears to be his insurance policy. OP is only going to get compensation or damages if it is covered by the insurance policy. The policy does not pay compensation or damages for breach of statutory duty. So debates about whether the CRA creates statutory duties for plumbers will just take OP up a blind alley. The policy does cover negligence though, but it is unclear whether insurers accept that the plumber was negligent. The difference between OP and the insurer seems to be as much about which property is covered by the policy (the contract works -vs - OP's own surrounding property) as it does about the basis of legal liability.
  4. So did I! Especially the reference to JCT contracts. After a bit of digging though it was this thread I was thinking of, which is about something different (although coincidentally the same insurer's policy wording!) Without knowing in detail what the damage to your property was and how it arose I'm not sure I can add much more. Sedgwick, the Loss Adjusters acting for the insurer QBE, seem to be taking the position that the policy covers accidental damage the plumber caused to your own property but not for the costs of rectifying the faulty workmanship. Obviously I don't know what happened, what's damaged, what the plumber was doing, or what contract you had with the plumber so impossible to say whether that is correct. But on the face of it their position isn't obviously wrong or untenable. Debating whether the plumber was in breach of a statutory duty is pointless waste of time. Even if they were, breach of statutory duty is only covered by the policy to the extent the plumber was being prosecuted in court for a breach of statutory duty (ie the breach was a criminal offence). Then the policy would pay the plumber's legal fees to defend him in court. That's all. Nothing else. It wouldn't help you at all (as the plumber isn't being prosecuted)
  5. LI1.4 defines what Costs and Expenses are insured in addition to the basic cover for damages (ie the repair of the damage caused) but you don't appear to have quoted the full wording of the section. The subsection you've posted isn't relevant. But none of it is particularly relevant to your claim unless you are incurring legal costs in pursuing your claim against the plumber and are seeking to recover them in addition to the cost of repairing the damage caused by the plumber. Both Mwynci and me have explained that you are misunderstanding what "breach of statutory duty" means and what LI3.1 says. Your claim may be covered under the main insuring clause, LI13.1 subsection (a). Why not post up on here the letter you have received from insurers (with all personal identifying details removed) so that we can see what they have said and why they have declined the claim? The Legal Ombudsman deals with complaints against solicitors and legal services providers, not about insurance claims.
  6. if I don't believe you are interpreting this correctly. L1.4 is about the policyholder's legal costs in being represented in court if facing prosecution or official enquiry. Nothing to do with compensation to third parties for damage the policyholder caused. "Breach of statutory duty" is legally complex but I doubt it applies to a private duty to you under CRA. Statutory Duty is usually about duties to the public. But it doesn't need debating because L1.4 only covers legal defence costs for breach of statutory duty in "proceedings in any Court of Summary Jurisdiction". ie, the Policyholder is being prosecuted for criminal offence of breaching a statutory duty in (usually) a Magistrates Court. L1.4 is irrelevant to your issue. L3.1 is the basic insuring clause covering the plumber for claims from third parties for damage caused by their work if the plumber has legal liability for causing the damage. Breach of statutory duty has nothing to do with it. You need to work on establishing whether the plumber was negligent (or some other basis (tort) that legal liability can arise from, but most often negligence).
  7. cchange, why is it a problem to serve by post?
  8. home My mother went through a similar experience: moving out of her own home into a care home, then her health worsened and she went to hospital. The care could no longer meet her needs so we had to find her a nursing home before she could be discharged from hospital. Neither the care home nor the nursing home charged her council tax. AFAIK residents of care and nursing homes are not personally liable for council tax so there is nothing you need to do. Residential care/nursing homes are one of the special cases where the owner not the resident is responsible for paying the council tax. The owner of a care/nursing home pays the council tax but that will be part of the overhead expanse of running the home. Residents don't pay it directly so you don't need to contact the council. I assume that is the situation your dad is in? If he also owns his own home then that's a different matter.
  9. Was the 6 months notice to leave given in writing? If so that was a very generous length of notice but as it was done it's probably too late to change it to something shorter. I have no special knowledge or experience about this but I note the Citizens Advice page says this: If you have a periodic agreement If you have a periodic agreement, you have to give the notice period that is set out in your agreement. If the agreement doesn’t say how much notice is required, it will depend on whether you have an excluded tenancy or an excluded licence. As a lodger, you are likely to have a licence, which means that you must give 'reasonable' notice. There are no set rules about what is reasonable The problem is that there is no written agreement on the basis the lodger is there. But I'd guess most likely a court (if it ever came to that) would say a 'Periodic Agreement'. As it doesn't specify a notice period "reasonable" notice is required. I'd think 6 months is more than "reasonable" and lodger has to go by the end of May. But if doesn't go it would need your friend to get a court order. I suggest she sees Citizens Advice and make sure they agree with what I've said before doing anything else.
  10. NDA = Non disclosure agreement? So your contract with your customer included a form of confidentiality clause covering, amongst other things, the identity of the end user? I think you need a solicitor to review your contract and its NDA/confidentiality clause. If your contract with your customer has now ceased it doesn't automatically mean the NDA/confidentiality clause has. Often they have post-termination effect. You need a legal professional to review the whole contract and advise you. This is a private contract between two businesses, you and your customer. There is no mechanism for having a B2B confidentiality clause rescinded or unilaterally cancelled by you. You need to establish what the contract actually says before you can decide what to do next.
  11. Since the update my antivirus, Kaspersky Internet Security, has started identifying all CAG forum posts as 'Dangerous' and blocks them. I can override the block but have to do it repeatedly for every page I visit. The reason is always the same, 'Heuristic Analysis' (whatever that is). This is an example. I end up with dozens of these. There may be a way to whitelist the whole of CAG on KIS but I don't have the time to research it at the moment. Has anyone else experienced this?
  12. Since the update I my antivirus, Kaspersky Internet Security, has started identifying all CAG forum pages as 'Dangerous' and blocks them. I can override the block but have to do it repeatedly for every page I go to. It's driving me nuts! I don't know if anyone else has this problem. I never got it on the old forum. I'll have to do some research to see if there's a way I can whitelist the whole of CAG on Kaspersky but I really don't have the time to do that right now.

    This is an example - a quick browse through CAG and I end up with dozens of these. The reason is always 'heuristic analysis'. I'm not even sure what that is!



  13. anney63, please can give more information about your late wife's Will. Did she leave one? If so who are the executors? They are responsible for paying any debts of your late wife. Also can you post up on here a copy of the claim form you have received (with all identifying information, claim numbers, bar codes etc removed). I've been away and only just logged back into CAG to read the thread. I see you has until yesterday to respond. What defence did you send (identifying details removed again)?
  • Create New...