Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I just found a couple abandoned traffic cones locally by some bins.   A bit squished but free!  So have placed them on the land.  Will wait to see if the cones get moved and signs ignored again this week before I consider rocks/ boulders.
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • 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

Thanks caro, so I may have been in a better position if I had just paid by credit card and disputed it from the beginning, and allowed the credit card company to investigate rather than an ill informed judge make a decision on what he has limited knowledge of. A shame I did not know then what I know now

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 612
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The roof has leaked again. I was thinking of sending the following:

 

 

"after the attendance of your worker and subsequent heavy rainfall the roof is leaking again. This situation is becoming extremely difficult for my family as I am unable to continue the work in my extension until this issue is rectified. I have not heard from you since 12/05/2014 when your worker attended, despite him stating he would be in touch. I will be left with no option but to contact the court unless I hear from you promptly. I have attached pictures of windows leaking again

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

http://tinypic.com/r/20a88xy/8

http://tinypic.com/r/hrest5/8

http://tinypic.com/r/2nrlnrd/8

http://tinypic.com/r/2nrlnrd/8

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the following from the roofer.

Good Afternoon Mr xxx

 

I have spoken with (roofer who attended) who informs me the roofing works are now complete. Once the tiles were removed and there was exposure to the areas, no leakage was found during the investigation and that the areas were in his words ‘bone dry’. I therefore conclude our business and shall today apply for the Insurance Cover and request that payment in full is now made within 14 days to allow me to produce your 10 year warranty as agreed. (roofer who attended) has left a message with (inspector) to attend at his nearest convenience to inspect the final works.

 

In the meantime I should advise you that upon inspection and searching for your reported leakage (roofer who attended) informs me that there is a major problem with your side and main roof to the property. Looking from the back of the property to the right side (the 2 storey flat roof), it is suspected there is an internal leakage within the cavity and that your main roof is also in need of repairs.

 

I am aware that we have in the past supplied you with quotations for the repairs required and would urge you therefore to seek a roofing company to rectify the problems that currently exist which is in no way connected to the roof that (roofing company) has supplied and this will cure your leaking problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

The roofer is trying to blame the leak on to your first floor roof,

by doing this he is "Misleading the Building control and thus the Court.

 

TIMES UP

Legal advice and back to Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please employ a structural engineer, a roofer, a surveyor and anyone else who can report on your entire house, if all reports say virtually the same, the court will surely have to take action, they are after all the experts, and judge is not!

 

This is going to cost you either way, but I'd much rather pay any or all of the above, than the original roofer a single penny more than is necessary! The grief this has caused you is unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see many options open to Kinger, if he really wants to challenge it it would need to be with the courts approval to vary the order and appoint an expert........not without the risk of bearing the full costs of a hearing if countered by the other side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see many options open to Kinger, if he really wants to challenge it it would need to be with the courts approval to vary the order and appoint an expert........not without the risk of bearing the full costs of a hearing if countered by the other side.

 

What full costs would it be? Its complete lies what they are saying. There is nothing wrong with the roof on my house. Im not going to give up now when I know these allegations are false. Surely I should take this as far as I can go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The costs of a hearing, it's small claims track but that does not provide either party with a guarantee of protection from a costs order.

 

If you don't want to give up and understand the risks then by all means apply to vary the order

 

Surely when you know you're in the right you cant just roll over due to the potential for costs? I may as well have paid up in the beginning and let him win. Excuse my ignorance but a cost order could only award expert witness costs? what other costs would there be apart from the court fees?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely when you know you're in the right you cant just roll over due to the potential for costs? I may as well have paid up in the beginning and let him win. Excuse my ignorance but a cost order could only award expert witness costs? what other costs would there be apart from the court fees?

 

If the roofer decided to employ a solicitor at hundreds of pounds an hour who knows what it may cost, and if there were expert witnesses who had to travel any distance or stay overnight that could be a lot. I agree that you shouldn't roll over but you need to be very clear on the legal aspects of your case because that's what the judge is likely to be considering. You could be talking thousands.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking about sending off the following:

Dear Roofer,

 

With regards to your email dated 14th May 2014, I regret to inform you I am unable to make full payment at this stage. My reasons are as follows.

 

 

  1. My roof is still leaking. None of the issues raised in court have been addressed or rectified.
  2. The building inspector has not inspected nor issued a certificate.
  3. An insurance backed guarantee has not been produced

 

The Judge’s ruling was the following:

 

It is ordered that:

“1. The claimant shall at his expense inspect the velux windows and rectify any aspect of the installation likely to result in water ingress. The claimant is not however required to alter the pitch of the roof. Further, and also at the Claimant's expense the Claimant shall arrange an inspection by the local authority inspector.

 

2. In the event the building inspector approves the work:

 

a) The claimant shall promptly and at his expense arrange an insurance backed guarantee in relation to all of the work carried out on site.

b) The defendant shall within 14 days of the guarantee pay the outstanding invoice sum

 

c) In the event the building inspector does not approve the work the parties shall promptly notify Judge xxxxx”

 

 

Point 2(B) of the ruling states that payment is to be made within 14 days after the production of a insurance backed guarantee. You have yet to produce this. I do not agree that the cause of the leak is due to defects on my house. If this was true then why did (roofer) not mention this when the quantity surveyor attended before work was carried out? Why was this not mentioned in court? What qualifications does Mr (roofer who attended on Monday 12th May) have to make these claims and how could a visual inspection be sufficient?

 

I await your response,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

 

If you're serious about pressing the issue it would make sense to present a w/p offer to the other side containing a rider that absent any consent you will file an application to vary with the court. Try it at 50% to test the water...... you'll spend that much on a a sje, app fee and a day for the other sides sols if it goes belly up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

 

If you're serious about pressing the issue it would make sense to present a w/p offer to the other side containing a rider that absent any consent you will file an application to vary with the court. Try it at 50% to test the water...... you'll spend that much on a a sje, app fee and a day for the other sides sols if it goes belly up.

 

Mike,

If Kinger did as you are suggesting then would that be in "Full and final settlement" ?

 

If it is in "Full and final settlement". Then Kinger would be unable to sue the roofer for damages and breach of contract etc.

If he wanted to take the roofer to court

Or would he ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge disposed of the cc based on the fact that the roofer stated that the roof was fine at 13.5 degrees.

If an independent report states otherwise surely that would prove the roofer has "misled" the judge ?

 

Why can't Kinger start a "new court case" ?

 

I can't believe this "roofer" can just get away with this and leave Kinger to "pick up the pieces"

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case still exists, it's not concluded until both parties perform per the order. If Kinger is adamant that he is not satisfied he will need to ask the court [by application] to vary the order, granting relief to the parties to instruct a single joint expert and act on those findings. The difficulty is that the roofer will fight tooth and nail to derail any such application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case still exists, it's not concluded until both parties perform per the order. If Kinger is adamant that he is not satisfied he will need to ask the court [by application] to vary the order, granting relief to the parties to instruct a single joint expert and act on those findings. The difficulty is that the roofer will fight tooth and nail to derail any such application.

 

Thanks Mike. in the mean time shall I send off that email I posted before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to send something I think I'd say less and just remind him of the terms of the order and at what point payment becomes due.

 

At some point you need to decide whether to take this back to court, pay per the order or push the other side to settle by way of compromise at a lesser sum. It seems sensible to chew it over for a couple of days before sending any further correspondence.

 

It's a decision only you can make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

I think Mike is giving some very good advice here and you do need to think about the costs of going back to Court.

Maybe consider a w/p with the roofer.

 

There is another point.

I've spent sometime going back over the thread and the photos, plans etc.

 

The main bathroom is on the rear elevation of the building in the middle of the rear extension.

Obviously the "plumbing" must have been altered.

Are you sure the "leak" is not from the plumbing in the bathroom ?

 

It may be a leak on the waste pipework (eg When you pull the plug on the bath).

Thus it is not "apparent" all the time.

This could be why the roofer found the roof to be "bone dry".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

Another question (if I may) because I have no wish to give incorrect advice.

 

In heavy rain.

Is the guttering on the main roof coping with the volume of water?

Or is it over flowing the gutters ????

I suspect you may not have noticed, but worth checking.

The above could also cause "water ingress" into the cavity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

I think Mike is giving some very good advice here and you do need to think about the costs of going back to Court.

Maybe consider a w/p with the roofer.

 

There is another point.

I've spent sometime going back over the thread and the photos, plans etc.

 

The main bathroom is on the rear elevation of the building in the middle of the rear extension.

Obviously the "plumbing" must have been altered.

Are you sure the "leak" is not from the plumbing in the bathroom ?

 

It may be a leak on the waste pipework (eg When you pull the plug on the bath).

Thus it is not "apparent" all the time.

This could be why the roofer found the roof to be "bone dry".

 

Thanks for the input f16. I didnt even think that was possible. Ill definitely have to make sure if that is the cause of the leak I dont make a fool of myself by going back to court. An expert witness is going to cost lots too. I think I need to carefully consider my options like Mike said

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinger

Another question (if I may) because I have no wish to give incorrect advice.

 

In heavy rain.

Is the guttering on the main roof coping with the volume of water?

Or is it over flowing the gutters ????

I suspect you may not have noticed, but worth checking.

The above could also cause "water ingress" into the cavity.

 

I have never noticed that either as I am never outside when it is raining. ill have a look the next time im outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...