Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I understand that as they have not ceased trading, the warrant is not relevant to you. This means that any claim – if it goes that far – is going to have to be on the basis of their negligence or breach of contract. Of course their contract was with the original owner of the property and in order for you to enforce it as 1/3 party, you would have to claim third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This would be assuming that the original contract did not exclude your third party rights expressly within the contract. Let's hope it didn't. I think before hassling the installer to get going, I would get an independent assessment done in order to understand exactly the extent of the problem and the remedial work needed to address the problem – which might include completely removing and refitting the windows – and the cost of this. I think I would put this inspection on hand very quickly because if the installer suddenly gets the parts that they need and want to start commencing the work, you might be in a difficult position where you have to tell them to wait. Put an independent assessment in hand. Do it quickly. It may incur a fee – but am afraid that you will have to do absorb that for the moment – and come back here when you get a report
    • Doing a bit of detective work I managed to track down the father who told me the whole story of how his son had fallen through the roof. The son then met me a few days later at the lockup and explained to me what happened. Both conversations were recorded on my phone 😉
    • I guess I can write a letter along the lines of: Application to strike out case: It was ordered by District Judge X on 7 April 2021, that the parties in the case file a trial bundle by 13 May 2021 at 4pm. It was further ordered that if this was not complied with the case may be struck out.  While it is provided under CPR 3.8(4) that steps in the Order may be extended up to 28 days with prior written agreement, the claimant has failed to send any kind of correspondence whatsoever, either requesting extension of the time for the steps, or by directly complying with the Order to file a trial bundle. The defendants have both filed trial bundles as ordered, and therefore the 1st defendant asks that the case is struck out in accordance with CPR 3.4(2(c)), on the basis of the claimant's failure to comply with the Order of 7 April 2021. Should I just send this to the court? No need to send to the defendant?
    • I'll let one of the small claims court experts answer that.  I'd have thought that if you know the name and address of the gardener who was on the roof and actually caused the damage issue proceedings against them. They can always ask the court to add or substitute other defendants. Wait and see what others advise.   Bear in mind that you are going to have to demonstrate that the gardener is legally liable to you for the damage caused, most likely that the gardener was negligent. Did you see it happen? Do you have witnesses or evidence about how the gardener came to fall through the roof?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3048 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

At least 1,400 soldiers have received unfair sanctions, including dismissal and missed promotion, because the Army spent several years wrongly disciplining anyone who received a police caution.

 

Minutes and briefing notes from two Army Justice Board meetings show that the Adjutant-General, the Army’s most senior personnel officer, knew as early as 2011 of the problem, which is related to changes in the law on rehabilitating offenders.

 

It is unclear, however, whether those affected by the mistake have been informed that potentially career-ending penalties should not have been enforced against them. One senior army officer told The Times that compensating for the error could cost millions of pounds and that the damage to soldiers’ careers would be irreparable. “The Army has unlawfully taken action in 1,400 cases, including dismissing soldiers — and they are covering it up,” the officer claimed. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3649756.ece

 

Full article; http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/192588-times-army-faces-huge-bill-victims-rough-justice.html

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could there be some sort of arrangement to get rid of the ranks by stealth so there is no pay-out when they make them redundant?

If that is the case, it's just come back and kicked them up the bum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...