Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wait until you get a refund from the purchaser before accepting anything else. Please will you post up the text of the email that you received.  Make sure that you look after the text that you received from the purchaser
    • I’ve just received a letter from a debt collection agency called Intrum about an old Halifax credit card debt, they have never been in touch before and the letter says that because I have failed to contact them they are passing on to a company called Resolvecall who specialise in home visits. This debt is from about 14 years ago when I got into some financial trouble, I had a default on file but that dropped off around 4 years ago. Is there anything I can do with this as I don’t really want people coming to my house, thanks in advance? 
    • Just wanted to check if anyone knows, I'm in the process of retrieving the transcript. There was no time frame given in the appeal judges directions, does this mean none applies or is there an unwritten timeframe that applies as a default for these things? 
    • I left a trustpilot review and P2g have emailed me with the obligatory apology and have refunded the postage costs and are will to give £10 extra pre pay as a good will gesture. However,  as i wrote this the Buyer has just txt.me.to say they have received the parcel !  So obviously im now going.to suggest that she pays via Paypal ... I rang her this morning to see if it had arrived but she said she was on holiday and there was someone in her house she would have to contact to see if it had arrived which she obviously has ... So now i know its been delivered i cant go for P2g But i Can accept the exta £10 ...
    • The defendant in this case is Parcel2Go.com Limited The claimant sent a parcel using Parcel2Go Ltd as a broker and Evri as the shipper via the Defendant's service containing which contained two handmade bespoke wedding trays to a customer with  under  tracking number P2Gxxxxxxxx. The parcel was never delivered although the defendant stated that three attempts had been made to deliver the parcel.  The claimants customer waited in for four days to receive the delivery but no delivery was attempted. There was no communication with the claimants customer.  Despite many web chats and emails the parcel was not delivered and on the Parcel2Go website it stated that the customer had refused delivery. This was not true as no delivery had been attempted.  I was The Defendant informed me that the parcel was being returned to me but after waiting three weeks I was informed by the courier that the parcel was lost. I was offered compensation of £20 + shipping fee which I refused and after sending Parcel2Go a Letter of claim this was increased to £75 which I also refused. The Claimant did not purchase the Defendant's insurance policy as requiring people to pay extra for rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act 2015 is contrary to section 57 and 72 and therefore unenforceable. The Claimant rejected the Defendant's standard compensation offer. It is clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as they did not act with reasonable care and skill when handling the claimants parcel, contrary to section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   By failing to ensure the safe delivery of the Claimant's parcel the Defendant breached section 49 of the CRA 2015.   AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £370.00 being the value of the lost goods £xx.xx being the price of shipping and interest pursuant to s69 cca 1984.   See what BF thinks but I think something like this is better. Remember you are suing P2G not evri.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Roofer did shoddy work and has now filed court claim against me


Kinger122
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3418 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

  • Replies 612
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Kinger

I will allow you to update the thread on to days events,prior to me making a comment.

 

In the meantime .... Photos listing as follows

 

Group. bbb Shot 2 +5 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. ccc Shot 1 +2 Velux

 

Group. ddd Shot 1 +3 +4 Velux

 

Group. eee Shot 1 + 2 + 4 Velux

 

Group. fff Shot 1 + 2 +3 +4 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. ggg Shot 1 Velux

 

Group. hhh Shot 1 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. iii Shot 1+2+3+5 Velux

Shot 4 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. jjj Shot 1+5 Velux

 

Group. kkk Shot 2+4 Velux

 

Group. lll Shot 1 Velux.

 

Catch up with you tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

 

You need to do a covering letter to the contacts I gave you for both Velux and Forticrete.

They require your contact details and address.

You will need to label each photo pointing out the errors as previously discussed.

 

Both these guys know their stuff and can assist.

Not "What you know, but who you know". .......In your roofers case ... neither !!!

 

I'm talking to Velux tomorrow... Ooops Today I mean. (just checked the time) :jaw:

 

As I said before "The show ain't over till The Fat Lady Sings"

 

Keep your chin up. I'm up for the next 10 rounds.

 

Look at it like this.. One door shut.... I just opened another two. :-D

F16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Sorry for the delay in updates. The building inspector attended and refused to climb and inspect the roof. I told him all of the flaws which F16 had kindly helped me with and he told me that it was too specialised and not within building regulation's remit. The two inspectors were not interested in the poor installation, the lack of ventilation.

 

 

They did say that because the roof was leaking at the time they attended they would not issue a certificate but they would do so once the leak was rectified. They said that they have no issues with the pitch either and that I should hire a project manager or a surveyor to ensure the other aspects of the roof are satisfactory ( but the roof is already completed!)

 

 

With the help of F16, I have contacted Velux and Forticrete and they may inspect the roof and provide me with a report. They seem genuinely interested in this case especially as it involves their products and both have reiterated that the combination of windows and tiles cannot be installed at less than 15 degrees.

 

 

Can I present additional information at court and can I reject the building inspectors certificate and withhold payment as I believe the roof is still not fit for purpose? Especially considering that the building inspectors have essentially said that the roof is too complicated for them to pass judgement on.

 

 

I will post any replies I receive and keep this updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the builder, have you set dates for his inspection yet?

 

You can apply to the court at any time, I'm just not sure that throwing good money after bad is going to provide you with the remedy you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

Yes I will confirm on Kingers behalf that the "Roofer" has been sent an Email asking what dates in the next 2 weeks he would like to attend

to resolve the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensible not to encourage an application from the other side.

 

I did look at the pics and to be polite, it appears ( from a laypersons pointy of view) to be a shoddy finish and I don't think I'd be excited by it if it were my home. Having said that, the case is what it is, people spend thousands and exhaust years of their lives on cases just such as this. I think I'd aim for the best finish possible without the courts further intervention and put it down to experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike

Due to the Building Control deciding that as long as the roof is not leaking they will "Pass" it. (It appears they "make up" the "rules" as they go).

 

What Kinger and I are working on is the"insurance clause". Materials not to manufactures spec.

I think I've negotiated a "deal" with Velux and Forticrete tiles where they will provide Kinger with "expert" reports.

 

The question is:

After it is proved the insurance will not "cover" the roof.

 

Can these reports be submitted to court ???

 

And how should Kinger go about this ???

 

Cheers F16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Building control was to be expected, it won't go beyond its remit. I think you should cross that (insured risk) bridge as and when the time comes. Settlement is subject to underwriting, if that isn't possible it will either fall to a compromise of the case (consent order of lower value) or back to the courts intervention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Building control was to be expected, it won't go beyond its remit.

 

I agree but ..........

 

Roof Ventilation was within their remit, but they "Side stepped it" (Ignored it)

Roof straps (ties) again within their remit but conveniently "side stepped"

 

Kinger has been miss lead by the architect and roofer regarding the "Pitch" and now let down by Building Control.

 

To cap it all. .. "Mr magoo with a blind fold" fitted the roof.

(Kinger Google "Mr Magoo". ... You will understand. I'm old,your young)

 

The only "fail safe" now is the insurance clause (underwriting) backed up by expert statements / reports

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the builder, have you set dates for his inspection yet?

 

You can apply to the court at any time, I'm just not sure that throwing good money after bad is going to provide you with the remedy you want.

 

I have tried to be as flexible and accommodating as possible by allowing the roofer to select the dates he wants to attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but ..........

 

Roof Ventilation was within their remit, but they "Side stepped it" (Ignored it)

Roof straps (ties) again within their remit but conveniently "side stepped"

 

Kinger has been miss lead by the architect and roofer regarding the "Pitch" and now let down by Building Control.

 

To cap it all. .. "Mr magoo with a blind fold" fitted the roof.

(Kinger Google "Mr Magoo". ... You will understand. I'm old,your young)

 

The only "fail safe" now is the insurance clause (underwriting) backed up by expert statements / reports

 

Hi f16. I think the insurance is the last and final thing we can fall back onto. After that I don't know what else there is. It seems like almost every avenue has been exhausted and justice has definitely not been done so far. I'll be posting any replies to emails I receive tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to be as flexible and accommodating as possible by allowing the roofer to select the dates he wants to attend.

 

I don't doubt it kinger, I'm just cautious of you losing more than the price of an unsatisfactory build if this is protracted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi f16. I think the insurance is the last and final thing we can fall back onto. After that I don't know what else there is. It seems like almost every avenue has been exhausted and justice has definitely not been done so far. I'll be posting any replies to emails I receive tomorrow

 

Kinger

He won't get past that one !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt it kinger, I'm just cautious of you losing more than the price of an unsatisfactory build if this is protracted.

 

Mike

I don't do the legal bit. .... Said many times.

That is what I find so interesting on this forum... "Balanced debate".

 

The way I view this is.

 

The Judge "kindly" gave Kinger more than enough rope to "hang" the roofer.

This "piece of rope" has just been shortened by Building Control.

Thanks to the Judge including the Insurance there is still enough rope.

 

This is going to be the last "throw of the dice" on this judgement.

I can't see Kinger has anything to lose.

 

I agree that if he proceeded past this point he would have to consider the costs involved and "what he has to lose"

 

What is your view on the situation ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view persists, the claim is relatively low in quantum, DJ's have a relatively high expectation of professional damage/loss ( comes with the salary) and a low expectation of lips losses. Hearings are held and decided not necessarily on legalities within the SCT but on fairness of the judgment. I don't agree its right, it is what it is and utterly dumbfounding at times.

 

In this case the DJ appears to have considered the claimants case as reasonable ( in respect of meruit) but has erred on the side of caution in allowing for building control and risk underwriter to decide for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree its right, it is what it is and utterly dumbfounding at times

 

Amen. I agree with that !!!!

 

So "IF" it ends up in front of the DJ because the roofer can't get the correct insurance.

 

Can kinger produce further evidence to back up his counter claim ????

 

Or does he have to make a separate claim ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...