thanks for the reply Ford. Can I defend the claim online like I did with the first one, and will this have to go to a hearing again? Also what exactly do I write in my defence? Are there specific words I need to use, or do I just state that this case has already been dealt with and state the case number

Thanks for the reply f16. Im glad you're still around. Hopefully we get this thing sorted once and for all. The leaking has been stopped by some temporary work but long term I think the windows are going to have to be removed

Do I need to make a new thread? Or will people not see this one because its old?

Yes. They didn't turn up and the claim was struck out. This claim makes reference to the previous claim and seeks breach of contract and interest

Hello everyone. I didn't think I would need your help again (at least so soon) but the builder has filed another court claim against me for breach of contract for the same case which has already been dealt with. What do I do? Thanks

I've just got back from the court. First of all the good news. THE CASE HAS BEEN DISMISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! However it was not based on the strength of my case. That's right, I still did not win based on the seemingly endless paperwork to back up my side. The Claimant did not turn up. The judge was trying to argue the Claimant's side. He said why did the building inspector not attend when the Claimant attended, despite the attendance of the inspector being the responsibility of the Claimant. The judge said that he was dismissing the counterclaim and would not reinstate it. He said that we should have appealed, despite him saying at the prior hearing that we could only appeal on inconsistencies regarding the interpretation of the law. I am pretty disappointed and upset as this seems to be a joke. The advice I received on here which I believe to be true was I had no grounds to appeal, yet the judge now said that I should have. The judge did not want to know about anything further and only dismissed the case when I said that I wanted to pay myself in full for an expert witness. Can I now start a new claim against the roofer for damages to the internal work? Because the counterclaim was dismissed does that mean I can never make a new claim against the roofer for the same thing? I am really confused here. Lastly but definitely not the least. Thank you all for all of your selfless and never ending help and support. A special word to F16 who has offered so much of his time and help unreservedly. Thank you all once again. Whilst this is not a complete success it is definitely not a failure.

Thanks for the replies and support. Is the only thing I can do now is just make sure I take a copy of my court application to the hearing?

I have some news at last! A court hearing has been set on the 1st August for 30 mins. what do I do now? (if anything). There was no additional information. It would seem to me the court does not want to spent much more time on this case. Does this mean its unlikely the judge will want to allow an expert do be instructed?

Thanks for all the support. It's nice to know people haven't given up on me.

Hi everyone. I have still received nothing from the court. I'm still sitting in limbo land!

I have received insurance backed guarantee policy documents from the roofer regarding the insurance backed guarantee yesterda. This is AFTER they have applied to the court for me not complying with the order. Here are the documents http://tinypic.com/r/28lz0vp/8 http://tinypic.com/r/2j49bna/8 http://tinypic.com/r/1fcn86/8 http://tinypic.com/r/23r6f5e/8 The policy schedule states a price WITHOUT VAT yet further down the policy it states the contract must be inclusive of VAT. Also as I previously mentioned the exclusions state that they will not insure items which have an expired guarantee with the manufacturer. Is expiry synonymous with void with regards to insurance policies/legal documents? Thanks

Another update. The N244 was sent a few days ago. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Here are the insurance backed guarantee policy exclusions. This was what I obtained by myself to give me an idea of what is likely to be included if the roofer was to produce a warranty. Can anyone comment on the validity of these terms applied to my roof? Here are the exclusions: Policy Exclusions The Insurer shall not be liable for: 1 any loss or damage where the Policy Holder is unable to supply a copy of a contract, invoice or specification of work evidencing the Insured Works; 2 any loss or damage where the Contractor has not Ceased Trading; 3 any loss incurred by the Policy Holder which is above the Limit of Indemnity of this Policy; 4 the first £50 of each and every claim under this policy, which shall be known as the Excess; 5 any loss or damage to any material where the manufacturer’s guarantee in respect of that specific material has expired; 6 any loss or damage or costs incurred that do not relate specifically to the physical rectification of a Defect or a Major Defect in the Insured Works; 7 any loss or damage to the Policy Holder’s property caused by the Contractor which do not form part of the Insured Works; 8 the cost of routine maintenance, overhaul or modifications to the Insured Works or loss or damage arising therefrom; 9 any loss or damage to the Insured Works caused by any peril capable of being insured under a commercial property, household or similar policy of insurance, including but not limited to fire, lightning, explosion, storm, tempest, flood, malicious damage, accidental damage, subsidence, landslip or heave, whether or not such insurance is effective or in force at the time; 10 any loss incurred by the Policy Holder for which compensation or recourse is provided by legislation, particularly where the Policy Holder has made payment to the Contractor via a credit card or finance agreement, and has rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; 11 any loss of use or any other costs that are directly or indirectly caused by the event which led to a claim, unless specifically stated in this Policy; 12 any damage to the Insured Works caused by war risks, sonic booms or nuclear radiations; 13 any loss or damage caused by fair wear and tear or the discolouration of the Insured Works; 14 any loss or damage which is due to a neglect in the maintenance of the Insured Works; 15 the rectification of the defective design of the Insured Works; 16 any remedial work which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy undertaken to the Insured Works without the consent of the Insurer; 17 any Defect discovered or reported to the Contractor more than 6 months before the Contractor Ceased Trading.

It has began to rain now. I have also received specimen policy documents eventually. These two paragraphs seem particularly important, but they may be open to interpretation "As part of the claims process, the Insurer will expect the Policy Holder to supply a copy of a contract, invoice or specification of work evidencing the Insured Works. Should the Policy Holder be unable to supply such evidence, the Insurer may decline the claim. The Policy specifically excludes any loss, damage or cost in respect of any damage to any material where the manufacturer’s guarantee in respect of that specific material has expired." Is an expired warranty and a void warranty the same thing? I am not sure if it is. Check your PM F16, I have been trying to get in touch

Another update: Due to computer technical issues and commitments today I was unable to submit the documents. I will however do this on the 3rd June. The roof leaked today and where the Velux engineer identified badly installed flashing (as F16 identified earlier), after some heavy rain today I have significant water leakage down the wall as well as in the roof. Shall I keep a detailed log of leaks from now on? Would I be able to claim compensation for any materials damaged/requiring replacement, or is it not worth the hassle? Am I just aiming to have his claim dismissed and put the rest down to experience? Would it also be a good ideal to email the roofer or shall I let sleeping dogs lie so to speak? I am wary about undermining my own case for an expert witness if I give too much information. Thanks for all your continued support

Thank you all for the support. Ill be sending off the N244 form on Monday with the changes and keep you updated.

I received the report from the Velux technician. " Report: Inspected 1x GGU M06 0073G21U installed at a 13˚ pitch in a roof with an 11˚ pitch with suspect grinding noise when the window is in operation. I opened the window and found this to be correct, when I inspected further I found dust and grit in the centre pivot hinge causing the grinding noise. I have cleaned the dust and grit out of the hinges and added grease, the window now works with the correct noise levels. As the windows are installed at a 13˚ pitch this voids the windows guarantee as it is clearly stated in the VELUX installation instructions that the minimum pitch for a GGU VELUX window is 15˚ with an EDW flashing, as the instructions have not been followed for the minimum roof pitch this will lead to the windows leaking and must be remedied as soon as possible by the installer. The Customer also has another 2x GGU M06 0059 windows installed and asked me to inspect these also, these are also installed at 13˚ and is incorrect and must be remedied as soon as possible. There is also grit and dust in these hinges which I have cleaned and added grease to give a smooth operation. Under further inspection I noticed water marks on the internal ceiling finish in the corners of the VELUX windows and on the internal plaster finish of the wall away from the windows. I then inspected the outside of the windows to see if the installation instructions have been followed, this is not the case and looks to be a poor installation of all 3 windows as a number of points have not been followed to VELUX instructions. All 3 windows have the same faults on the outside due to instructions not being followed, All three windows need to be raised up to a minimum of 15˚ to come in line with VELUX installation instructions. Incorrect screws have been used to fix the cover parts in position, bracket screws used instead of cover part screws, the correct screw is grey to match the grey cover parts not silver which have been used and in some cases none VELUX screws which are black and should not have been used as VELUX supply all screws needed. Screws not fixed correctly in the part 4 cover parts leaving the cover parts loose and vulnerable to water ingress, which is occurring as seen on the internal plaster finish. (Remedy as soon as possible). The tiles at the sides of the windows have not been fixed to VELUX standards, as the tiles butt right up to the window frame when it is clearly stated in the instructions that a gap of 40mm to 60mm should be left between the window frame and the tile to allow for the drainage to work correctly and not be blocked by leaves and other debris. Due to the tiles butting up against the window frame this has damaged all of the part 4 cover parts which are scratched and dented. (Replace with new). The parts 3’s of the flashing have also been installed incorrectly as the foam has not been cut to the profile of the tile just folded over and blocking the drainage which also pushes the tiles up and looks unsightly. The drainage on the parts 3’s of the flashing has also been damaged due to the tiles being forced down on to the uncut foam. This needs to be remedied as soon as possible to stop water ingress. (Replace with new). The part 4 cover parts have clips at the bottom of the window which need to be attached on installation, this has not been done on 2 windows which will lead to water ingress and needs to be remedied as soon as possible. The part 4’s have folding tags at the top which need to fold through the top part of the flashing to hold down and keep secure, this has not been done and needs remedying as soon as possible. The rain sensor on the Integra window has not been fitted correctly leaving unsightly wires and is lifting the top casing of the cover parts and will lead to water ingress if not fixed as soon as possible (the rain sensor has been fixed upside down). 1 tile at the top right of the Integra window has been cut to short and has no coverage from the tile above which will lead to water ingress under the flashing. Some roofing flashing has been used to the top of the far right window which comes right out to the top of the window, this needs to be cut back away from the window to the same distance as the tile above the window. Recommendation: All the above faults need immediate attention by the installer to come in line with VELUX installation instructions, because as it stands the installation is very poor and voids Customer's Guarantee, please do not hesitate to contact VELUX for support and guidance on this matter."

Hahaha I love all your analogies

Thanks Mike. I'll post the report when I receive it. Do I need to serve the Claimant with the documents which I am sending to the court? What is the procedure?

Thank you for the input all. I will correct the numbering and make the changes. It would not paste correctly into the thread and I was unable to edit the numbering. Probably due to the formatting. I have a Velux inspector at my property and he has told me that the installation of the windows in terrible. He is taking photographs and will provide me with a report tonight. Is it a good idea to send this report in with the N244? Or shall I wait until the hearing, if indeed there is one?

I am sorry about the formatting. I could not get it to paste from a word processor correctly. Thank you

Witness Statement Background After the judgement on the 3rd April, the Claimant has not adhered to the order. The events since the ruling are the following: The Claimant sent me an email dated 3rd April 2014 in which he stated he wished to attend to “rectify issues stated in the judge’s directions.” The Claimant informed me he was then going to instruct the building inspector to attend to sign off the work. The Claimant stated he would have an insurance backed guarantee ready to hand over. As I had been away for my wife’s birthday, I did not reply to the email until the 15th April. I apologised to the Claimant for the delay and I informed the Claimant that the inspector should attend first. I felt it was in both our interests to identify all the issues prior to remedial work. (Doc 1) On 16th May 2014, the Claimant sent an email again (Doc 2) requesting to carry out remedial work without a prior inspection by the building inspector. On 22nd May 2014 I again informed the Claimant I did not feel it appropriate for remedial work to be carried out until an inspection had been carried out .(Doc 3) On 1st April 2014 the building inspector "1" attended with his colleague "2" from Building Control. Mr "1" sent an email dated 2nd April 2014 (Doc 4) where he stated his findings. In particular he wrote: “The roof cannot currently be classed as being suitable to meet functional requirements and in its current condition a completion certificate would not be issued for the extension works. I would recommend that you contact "roofer" to undertake the necessary repairs to make the roof watertight and if this is demonstrated then a completion certificate would be issued upon eventual satisfactory completion of works.” In addition, Mr "1" suggested that if the leaks could not be rectified that: “You engage an independent chartered surveyor, or an experienced roofing contractor, to survey the works for you and to act as a clerk of works during the repair process.” It is in my opinion that Mr "1" felt that the inspection ordered by the court was not something which could be carried out by building control and wrote the following after I had raised a number of issues with the roof which had been brought to my attention by an experienced roofer and the manufacturer of the windows, Velux: “Such detailed inspection does not form part of the building regulations inspection regime. “ After the building inspector’s attendance at my property on 1st May 2014, I emailed the Claimant to identify which day he could attend to carry out repairs over the next two weeks. The Claimant informed me that the 12th May 2014 was convenient at 8:30am which I confirmed. (Doc 5, 6) On 8th May 2014, I wrote to the Claimant stating that building control were unwilling to attend when they planned to carry out repairs on the 12th May and I suggested they contact building control. The Claimant replied on 9th May 2014 stating that Mr "2" was happy with the velux windows and that they do not leak; a contradiction to Mr "1's"earlier email. (Doc 7) Two options were provided of which I informed the Claimant I was happy to allow their workers to attend as agreed. I also provided photographs of the leaking windows. (Doc 8) (Pic 1) 9th May 2014 the Claimant sent an email stating that they would forward the photographs to Andrew the contract manager. (Doc 9) On 14th May 2014, I emailed the Claimant stating that since the attendance of their workers on 12th May 2014 the roof was still leaking and provided photographs. (Pic 2) The Claimant replied stating that after their inspection the area was “bone dry.” They also decided that our business had been concluded and that payment should be made within 14 days in order for them to produce the 10 year warranty as agreed, despite stating on 3rd April 2014 that they would have a insurance backed guarantee ready to hand over. The Claimant also stated that there was an internal leakage within the cavity. (Doc 10) On 16th May 2014 I replied to the Claimant’s email detailing why I was unable to make payment. I also informed the Claimant that they were not adhering to the order by requesting payment prior to the issue of an insurance backed guarantee. Furthermore my roof was still leaking and no approval had been given as to the condition of my roof. (Doc 11) On 16th May 2014, the Claimant replied stating that their investigation proved there was no leakage from their workmanship. They informed me the insurance had been requested, despite them having since the 3rd April 2014 to do so. They informed me that they would apply to the court and no longer wished to communicate with me as I “......have raised with regards to a leak to once again avoid payment.” (Doc 12) Reasons for Application to Court The Claimant has failed to prevent the leak Building control have stated that inspecting and evaluating the roof is beyond their remit The Claimant is requesting payment prior to the production of an insurance backed guarantee, contrary to what was agreed in court. The Claimant is stating the cause of the leak is due to internal leaking in my main property. I do not feel that this is the case, nor it can be determined from a ten minute visual inspection. I have made enquiries and neither the Claimant nor any of his employees have attended any training by Velux and are therefore not approved to install their windows. As the roof is less than the correct pitch of 15 degrees, I do not feel they are suitably qualified to install aforementioned products correctly and safely (Doc 13) As I have been unable to progress with my building work since October 2013, I kindly request the court to vary the order to ascertain the cause of the leak and the workmanship of the roof. If the inspection identifies that there are indeed substantial flaws with the roof, may I request the court to reinstate my counterclaim to allow me to put right the roof and bring this matter to a close. I have conducted research and found xxxxx from “xxxxx Building Surveyors to be suitably qualified. He is the only Surveyor in xxxxx registered as an Expert Witness for xxxxxxxxxxx. I have attached his CV for your consideration. I request you vary the order to allow the instruction of a single joint expert. I believe this witness statement to be true Defendant 30/05/2014

I have written the witness statement and I would be grateful for any feedback before I send it off. Thank you

Thanks Mike, I agree with you 100%. Just a few questions Shall I tell them to disregard my earlier letter/statement? Do I just attach a statement to the form (it says I can on one of the tick boxes) and write it the same way I did my initial witness statement with all evidence and photographs? Or Do I just briefly state my reasons and then provide full evidence later? Thank you for sticking with me on this.

Hi Mike. I already applied to the court last week but I have not filled in a N244 form because I asked the court and they said just to send a letter in. I have also called the court today and they have said that the judge has already considered all paperwork and will reply to parties either this week or next. They didn't seem to know what a N244 was. Should I send a N244 form now or shall I send one later? I had not posted that I had contacted the court earlier as I was not sure who was viewing the thread. Shall I re-submit my application with a N244? Or is it too late?

They sent me a full witness statement (like the initial statement before the court) including photographs and all documents. I don't know whether or not they have done it formally, or know if they know the correct procedure. Is there a requirement to file the documents on the other party? Is this initial form just to request a hearing, and then will the judge ask us both to send evidence to each other like we initially did?