Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
  • 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...