Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HB, the OP included their real name, but then edited the post.
    • Sorry honebee13, press on something and name was gone may well be tiredness
    • Just left the name not dacted. Can you sort this out please
    • Particulars of Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000. (See receipt at Exhbibit-1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhbibit-2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit -3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at ( Exhibit 4.)   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in  Exhibit-5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete is  £3,000 – Exhibit 1 (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above, £16,577.12 – Exhibit 5 (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above;  £8577,12 – Exhibit 6 (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.  TBA 4 and 5   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day of his employee left the property"        STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’.         Signed:                                          (  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4566 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

My partner recently received notification from her previous landlord that a bailiff from equita had visited her previous property in regards to an outstanding parking fine.

 

We're not disputing the fine went unpaid and we obviously didn't receive any correspondence from them as she failed to change the address via the DVLA

 

After she called him the bailiff refused to accept either full payment of £382.00 this coming Thursday (payday) or ANY offer of installments. He then stated that she had 24 hours to pay or they would seize her car.

 

She managed to borrow the money and notified the bailiff who said he would call back the following morning (after her father had placed it into her account) to take payment.

 

The bailiff failed to call so my girlfriend called and left two messages. asking her to call so she could make a payment. He failed to call back so she called the equita office stating that she would like to make a payment. They then refused and stated that the payment must go via the bailiff who is still uncontactable.

 

I'm basically looking for advice on what to do next as the cynic in me suggests the bailiff is trying to justify his fees and will be in touch soon with a revised and higher fee for phantom letters and visits.

 

Do we contact the council and make payment to them or do we insist that equita office accept the payment (if so how)

 

Finally, £382.00 seems excessive for a letter and a visit are the fees fixed and is their anywhere I can view them?

 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the fine wasn't that muchwas it?

 

 

You need to check out the fee's here as that's alot of money for one parking ticket

 

I think it was around £60.00 so obviously it's a substantial increase

 

Thank you for the link but the parking fine isn't really the issue as we admit liability in that respect. I was after advice on how to deal with the bailiff who failed to respond to our calls etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the bailiffs till you know exactly what you are being charged here .. they are probably trying to defraud you with their fee;s as they always do

 

That's all well and good but when they are threatening to turn up at your house and take your car then we would sooner settle the debt and reclaim it at a later date.

 

Again I'm just after advice on how to pay and whether the equita can refuse to accept payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can fill an out of time declaration

 

i don't know to much about this but Ive been having look round the site and any info i can find regarding this i will post for you this was posted on another thread by tomtubby

 

You clearly have the legal grounds in which to file on Out of Time late Statutory Declaration. This will be on the grounds that you did NOT receive the NtO or PCN. You have the legal right to do this.

 

You have admitted that you made an error by not advising DVLA and it is the case that you should have advised them but when filing an Out of Time you merely need to state the REASON WHY you failed to receive the PCN and tis is becuse you had moved home !!!

 

.

forumbox_right_tile.gifforumbox_bottom_left.gifforumbox_bottom_tile.gifforumbox_bottom_right.gif

Edited by hallowitch
Link to post
Share on other sites

another post by tomtubby

 

From what you have described it would appear that you have been assisted in filing an Ot of Time late Statutory Declaration. This can ONLY be done if have NOT received either the PCN or Notice to Owner of if you had appealed the PCN to the local authority and had not received a response.

 

There is no secret to the Warrant of Execution being "put on hold" as section 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) specifically state that once an Out of Time Statutory Declaration has been filed that all enforcement action must CEASE.

 

HOWEVER...you have said that this was 2 months ago and it is not usual for the Traffic Enforcement Centre to respond with a decision as to whether your application has been accepted or rejected.

 

If your application is rejected then the Warrant of Execution becomes live again and bailiff action can recommence and you may then file an N244 to appeal the Court Officer's decision to the County Court.

 

PS: You have said that the Warrant is no longer valid. Unless you have had a response from the TEC then the warrant is merely "on hold" as prescribed under CPR 75. It is NOT cancelled !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...