N1 - What I am claiming for

[Discobob]

Hi,

 

just about to fill in N3 to recover costs of having to rectify work against somebody.

 

The costs have been £1700, plus the costs of the original work - and so far the room still is not finished or usable due to lack of funds (8 MONTHS)

 

How would I fill out the N1 for a fixed amount plus loss of enjoyment - can I just combine the two

 

ie £1700 costs to redo work under.......

unspecified damages for loss of use of room

 

Thanks in advance

 

DB

[peterlucas]

You have to itemize what your claiming for on the main body of the form, but put just one amount in the box where it says amount claimed.

[Discobob]

You have to itemize what your claiming for on the main body of the form, but put just one amount in the box where it says amount claimed.

 

Thats the problem

 

There are two parts really - the actual cost to put it all right - £1,700

 

Then there is the "loss of enjoyment" or simular as we are effectively still without the family B-room

 

One is quantifiable - recovery of costs

 

The other is to the courts and non-quantifiable.

 

Can this be covered on the N1

 

Bob

[buzby]

You may have to forego your 'loss of enjoyment' and this can easily be taken as a wind-up. REASONABLE costs are allowed, fees for loss of something you never had (in only being delayed) can work against you.

 

What is also confusing, you are making up the total based on 'costs for the original work' - I'm assumng this was money already paid? If so, you cannot expect to charge for this - it's one or the other.

[Discobob]

You may have to forego your 'loss of enjoyment' and this can easily be taken as a wind-up. REASONABLE costs are allowed, fees for loss of something you never had (in only being delayed) can work against you.

 

What is also confusing, you are making up the total based on 'costs for the original work' - I'm assumng this was money already paid? If so, you cannot expect to charge for this - it's one or the other.

 

Hi Buzby,

 

It is the costs associated with putting right the work - less monies already paid to him - as he refused to correct it - It was dangerous and all had to be removed - and that meant having to have the walls re-done, new replacement materials etc...

 

What should have been a £1300 job for his work (inc. materials) has so far cost nearly £3500

 

because of this extra cost, we have not been able to complete the room - having to pay for it to be done in stages - 1 day here, 1 day there - which is making it even more expensive - and have had to survive with a shower with two young children for over 6 months.

 

Bob

[buzby]

If what you are saying is that he provided a price that was 66% less that the total price for the job to be done correctly, then if this is argued in court, it makes winning so much more difficult - as he can argue he didn;t charge for X, Y & Z as it isn;t required, but you got this done sperately, and now expect HIM to pay for it.

 

YOu may also have to show evidence of the other quotations you had to prove there were in the same ballpark for the same work, as if they're not close, an argment of 'betterment' could scupper your claim.

[Discobob]

If what you are saying is that he provided a price that was 66% less that the total price for the job to be done correctly, then if this is argued in court, it makes winning so much more difficult - as he can argue he didn;t charge for X, Y & Z as it isn;t required, but you got this done sperately, and now expect HIM to pay for it.

 

YOu may also have to show evidence of the other quotations you had to prove there were in the same ballpark for the same work, as if they're not close, an argment of 'betterment' could scupper your claim.

 

Hi Buzby,

 

I think that you are getting confused

 

He tiled the b-room - the work was dangerous and extremely poor quality, all the tiles had to be removed. In doing so, the walls (plasterboard and plaster) were damaged. These had to be made good before being tiled on again or else that would not have been safe, we had to get replacement tiles, and have the room retiled.

 

The figure in my last post was total cost to date - ie having the job done twice.

 

The extra costs were in removing tiles and having to have the room re-done. We were able to negotiate a 50% discount with the tile supplier because of what had happened to us or else the figure we were looking to claim back would have been higher.

 

There is no betterment - the tiles are exactly the same, the layout is exactly the same - just a safe and decent quality job.

 

Regards

 

Bob