Jump to content

rogerfed

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    24
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About rogerfed

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Is your builder insured? Yes Who is he insured with? QBE Have you seen any documentation relating to the policy? Yes he has given them to me. Is your builder cooperative in respect of you making a claim from his insurance? Yes fully. He has now gone bankrupt and so I am trying to claim directly off the insurer (via third party rights against the insurer act). Also if anyone could help with these previous questions: If PL insurance just covers the damage caused by faulty work, but not the actual faulty work, would the complainant not keep coming back each and every time the problem arises (if the insurer refuses to fix the actual structural issue)?! Also, has anyone ever claimed on an insurance policy against diminished value of a property after poor workmanship of a builder? Or has anyone claimed for consequential losses as a result of a builder, again from an insurance policy? Finally, I signed a JCT contract with my builder, allowing for adjudication if needed. Now that the builder is bankrupt, does his insurer have to enter into adjudication as per the JCT contract? thanks again!
  2. Just reopening this thread if I may. I am still pursuing my claim! But a quick question if I may? If PL insurance just covers the damage caused by faulty work, but not the actual faulty work, would the complainant not keep coming back each and every time the problem arises (if the insurer refuses to fix the actual structural issue)?! Also, has anyone ever claimed on an insurance policy against diminished value of a property after poor workmanship of a builder? Or has anyone claimed for consequential losses as a result of a builder, again from an insurance policy? Any advise please?
  3. Coming back to this, does anyone know why a house could not be considered a product? Surely a flatpack house is a product? Then why is a traditional house constructed or extended not also fall within the definition of a product? If an insurance policy defines a product as Any commodity article or thing computer software or firmware (including its container packaging label and instructions for use) which is (a) manufactured sold supplied processed altered or treated (b) repaired serviced tested or maintained © installed commissioned constructed or erected by You or on Your behalf and which is no longer in Your custody or control When then cannot it be argued that a house is a product? God knows the insurance wriggle out of any claim because of the policy wording, so surely I can argue they have to go by the wording of the policy. Obviously I know this is not what the insurance is for, but if I can find anyway of clawing back my losses, then I shall! Any thoughts please?
  4. So it's not relevent if someone agrees their previous statement was wrong, but the judge ignores that and goes with the original statement??? I can't get my head around it
  5. But isn't that the definition of discrimination? Treating people differently by having one policy for one person and another for someone else?! Are the ETs not encouraging discrimination? If a policy says that an interviewer should write 70% of what is said, then surely people who have had 70% of what they said written down have a greater chance of hitting all the right points and getting top marks!
  6. My apologies for not answering questions previously and yes it was not doubt to my detriment. TBH I have not really got my head around the concept of errors in law. Could you help me understand it by giving me some examples based on my case- I attended a job interview and was rejected because of my race? In terms of errors I think have been made I was hoping you would help me on this! I have shown in my post from yesterday the errors I think maybe applicable. I certainly think point 6 is very strong. As a very simple example- the witness put in his statement, he was unable to give me full marks for one parts of an interview because I did not explain how I went about achieving the desired goal. But when I cross examined him, I read out the answer I gave in the interview and explained that I clearly had explained how I achieved the desired goal. To this he agreed and that I should have been given full marks. When the judge delivered his notice, he makes no mention of my cross examination, and simply puts that he accepts the witnesses explanation for why he did not give me full marks. This is despite the witness already accepting that I did indeed give him the neccessay evidence he said was lacking and which made me loose marks to get the top score for the question. Surely it cannot be right that a judge can pick some evidence and ignore others. Again, I am gobsmacked at the stupidity of the ET system. Since when is it right for all witnesses to be in the same room! In scotland it is not allowed, why is it allowed here. JUst ridiculous. Anyway, any help you can offer would be appreciated!
  7. The problem is there is only one local law centre but they are extremely difficult to see
  8. I'm going to put in the EAT form 1 in and should it go to a hearing I'll get representation.
  9. Hello, I took my employer to a tribunal for sex discrimination and lost. I am now appealing the decision. I have a couple of questions for any legal boffins on here: 1. Why is it, in a criminal court if a witness lies, it will probably mean a case is thrown out. But in an employment tribunal/ civil court, why is it that when someone lies under oath, the ET not only allows the respondent to carry on with its evidence, but it also allows (and accepts as truth) all the rest of the "evidence" supplied by the witness who just lied. I just can't get my head around it! 2. At the end of a tribunal is it right that a judge can ask both parties to give an oral submission and disallow written submissions? In my case that is what happened and it threw me sideways. I came expecting to just put in a written submission and leave! The judge said there was a stated case, but did not explain which one it was. So I am looking to appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. My understanding is that they only consider errors in law. Again for any legal minds on here, are any of the following errors in law: 3. The respondent states that any evidence produced after ACAS conciliation began was legally privileged. The ET accepted that. But I spoke to ACAS and they confirmed that it was not right (only comms between the conciliator and the respondent are legally privileged). Has the ET erred in law by wrongly accepting the respondent's excuse for not fully disclosing all evidence to me? 4. During cross examination, the counsel for the respondent began communicating with the witness, whilst the panel were making notes. The judge mentions this in his written decision, stating that counsel and the witness denied this, but the witness went onto say at one point counsel did have a shocked look on his face. This is indirect communication from counsel, which the ET appear to have glossed over. Is this an error in law? 5. If the employer has a company policy, but the ET ignores the policy and applies a less strenuous thought process to the issue, than had the company policy been followed, has the ET erred in law? 6. If a respondent witness says ABC in its statement, but during cross examination agrees that they were incorrect on some points (XYZ). In the ET decision the judge only mentions ABC and fails to mention anything about XYZ, is that an error in law? 7. If the ET decision has factual errors in it's conclusion, is that an error in law? With the points above, could you please indicate what kind of error in law would it be? application of the wrong legal test inadequate reasons no evidence perversity bias/ apparent bias Finally, can anyone point me to a link where an example of an EAT form 1 has been structured well? Many thanks!:???:
  10. Thanks for all the advice so far. I have a few more questions if I may? 1. Can I ask the court to get the respondent to release the names of the people who failed to get the same job I applied for to see if they believe they have been discriminated against as well? 2. Can I cross examined on things that have been disclosed in the bundle? E.g. if I failed a course and there is no mention of this in the bundle- can I be cross examined about it? 3. Can the respondant add extra information to the agreed bundle? Should I allow it and if not, what are strong arguments against it? 4. Can statistics be given in a statement to help my case? 5. How would I challenge evidence in the bundle, if the person it concerns, does not appear as a witness at the tribunal? 7. Am I allowed to write down each question that the barrister asks me during cross examination. 8. As I cannot be re-examined, how can I put across my points after being cross examined? 9. What tactics do you think the barrister will use to make me look like I have poor listening skills and constantly interrupting during the cross examination? I ask this as the respondant claims these are the reasons that I did not get the job. many thanks
  11. I have been to a number of ETs and plan to go to more! Yes, tried ACAS conciliation, but my employer did not want to engage. Ok so I will be cross examined. No worries. Next few questions if I may? 1. The evidential bundle has been agreed and produced. Are there any circumstances when the claimant can request further disclosure? If not, can they request clarification on the contents of the bundle? 2. My previous solicitor advised I drop my claim after getting an email from the respondents solicitor claiming I had no chance of winning (and that he requested that I should do my case). Is that witness intimidation (it did feel so). Did my solicitor have a duty of care in this case? 3. My ex solicitor seemed to have made several excuses to do my case due to my legal expenses funding running out. Does this ever happen with solicitors making up lots of excuses to drop a case because their cash cow is gone? 4. Can anyone direct me to any free resources that could help me write a good statement? Perhaps online or phone helpline? Many thanks!
  12. Hi, I have loads of questions about employment tribunals as I am representing myself in one for discrimination. Can anyone help with my first (and certainly not last) question? If I represent myself, am I obliged to be cross-examined by the respondent? If not, what are the pros and cons?
  13. I don't ask the same question. I am in a 100ft hole and trying my best to find every conceivable way of getting myself out of it. Why berate me for that?
  14. Under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, does anyone know if a third party can complain to an insurer about the policy that was sold (in my case to a builder). My JCT contract stipulates the insurance was to be in both our names, but it would appear that both the builder and his insurer ignored this. I say this as the insurer needs to ensure they are selling the correct cover otherwise it would make them liable. Any thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...