Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We might, finally, be there -   Particulars of Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The Inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The Inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The Inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The Building Inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.    The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 1).   11.    The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Exhibit 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Exhibit 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in Exhibit 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Exhibit 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5; (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property     STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • So do you have psychic powers or are you merely Britain's foremost forensic accounting expert?  Or maybe you're a dentist...   Either way, I'm impressed by anyone who has made any sense of what simeon has posted today.  (And yesterday... and the day before... and the day before that...)
    • [Edit - I see I've cross-posted so hopefully this post of mine is NOT required and can be ignored.  Unless FTMDave thinks it might help]     Christ.   Looking back I see that I introduced paras 16 - 18 back in #95 (I think?) four days ago.  The purpose of those paragraphs was to give some basis to, and explanation of, the figure of £16577 that simeon was claiming, because all he had at that stage was "I'm claiming £16577" but no explanation why.   Because simeon has the intensely annoying habit of repeatedly posting things (like receipts, estimates and reports) with no explanation of why he was posting them or what they are, I've looked at them all and tried to break them down into 18(a) - (d) to make sense of them.  Despite my asking him on several occasions whether any of the posts he kept on making included any duplication of estimated costs, it would now appear that some of the figures are in fact duplicated.  Hence the sum of 18 (a) - (d) exceeds the total amount claimed...  😲 😬 ☹️   Why simeon could not have pointed out that he did not understand the purpose of para 18 (a) - (d) before now (I posted it four days ago) I simply cannot understand, but having looked back over this thread, I'm not certain that simeon has actually understood anything at all that we've been trying to tell him.   And that can't just be down to having poor English I'm afraid...   =============================================================================================================   I'm wondering if Simeon should drop the breakdown of para 18 into four sub-paragraphs and simply say something like this:     "18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £16,577.12 in respect of the costs listed at [simeon - you then add the Exhibit or exhibits where the lists of costs and/or estimates  totalling £16577 can be found, and then delete (a) - (d) as suggested below[   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete is  £3,000 – Exhibit 1 (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above, £16,577.12 – Exhibit 5 (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above;  £8577,12 – Exhibit 6 (d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.  TBA 4 and 5   19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day of his employee left the property"        STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I believe that the facts stated in this particulars of counterclaim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.’.   The above is just an idea to get round the fact we can't get (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) to add up to £16577.   It's just an idea at this stage......  
    • This is £3000 piling+£5190 unfinished+£387.12+ £8000.00  Correct
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye-Corley Services M6 **WON at POPLA**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2794 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

Had a PCN from Parking Eye for 10/01/14 ......2.5 hours

 

 

Issue is, they have sent demand to employer (company car)

I spent an hour explaining to MD, and extolling the virtues, of CAG. But he wants me to deal with it.

 

 

Should I send PE a note, to forward correspondence to me? So I can ignore them?

Or tell em, as a company we can't hand over driver details.... Data Protection etc

I have the ability to use company headers.

I notice, advise is changing a little, on the ignore front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I agree with the others. You need to take this away from your employer or else they 'may' pay it and take it from your wages

 

Just confirm you were the driver and then your boss is covered and PE will have to chase you so get the letter of appeal sent and wait for the rejection (as they always do)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a copy of the letter drafted, sent, and posted via their website.

 

 

The vehicle is allocated to:

Mr T.**********

********

*******

*******

CV10 ***

 

 

**** ******** Ltd won't be held responsible, for any speeding fines,

Parking tickets, or spurious invoices(parking charge notices)

obtained by staff driving company vehicles. As it's their responsibility, by law.

Please address all correspondence, to the person named above.

 

 

 

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Any further attempts to contact **** *********Ltd for invoice payment. Will result in a request,

for administration charges, and cost's, to be taken into account,

by any court you wish to use, to settle the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

 

 

Received, by post today, the same invoice from Parking Eye. Now addressed to me personally.

Identical, letter/invoice, but with the date of issue, changed to 12/2/14. Asking for £60 now,

or £100, after 26/02/14

 

 

So identical document, with dates changed.

 

 

So, Now I appeal direct to Parking Eye, 1st?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Letter below, sent to Parking Eye, today!

I could have gone on, and on....... but decided not to waste my time.

Dear Sirs,

With reference to, your two letters sent, dated, 26/01/14 & 21/02/14. You state I owe you monies, for overstaying, at a car park. I’m confused, as you’ve ask for monies to be paid, offering a ‘discount’ if paid by certain dates, on two separate occasions. Due to the nature, of your demanding money, for no reason. I can only conclude that these are speculative invoices.

I understand, that although, this invoice is speculative. To get resolution, I need to appeal. So take this letter, and the enclosed, receipts. As proof of purchases, from the land owners commercial business’s. As my appeal.

I also insist you issue me, with a POPLA code, so that if you carry on with this invoice claim. I can take full advantage of the independent appeals service.

If you do not desist, sending your spurious invoice claims. I will have no hesitation, to defend, and seek damages, in my local county court.

It is not beyond, the wit of man (and the courts) to see that £100, for allegedly 32 minutes of parking. Is not really any consequential loss, of balance, or validity? And If you so wish to pursue, this speculative invoice claim. I will be happy, to defend, in a local court of my choosing. As is my right.

To re-iterate. Please issue a POPLA code. If you wish to continue, with your claim.

Yours Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've received a letter, today, from Parking Eye.

 

 

Lots of case law, quoted, and a POPLA appeals document.

(why the hell I should appeal a spurious, invoice, I'll never know)

 

 

Whats the SP now, please?

 

 

What basis do I appeal to POPLA?

Is there any Templates, or advise?

Edited by *Thumper
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've received a letter, today, from Parking Eye.

 

 

Lots of case law, quoted, and a POPLA appeals document.

(why the hell I should appeal a spurious, invoice, I'll never know)

 

 

Whats the SP now, please?

 

 

 

What basis do I appeal to POPLA?

Is there any Templates, or advise?

 

1. Can ParkingEye please show, through sight of contract, that they have lawful authority to issue and pursue parking charge notices.

 

2. Can ParkingEye please show a full breakdown of the genuine pre estimate of loss that this charge must represent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As armadillo71 has said, but put some meat on the bones. What PE didn't say is that they always lose at POPLA on GPEOL when they cant prove their losses. Also there are a lot of questions being asked about their contracts.

 

You don't need any ' meat on the bones'...

Just bringing up the points means they have to be addressed.

(Or not,and the PPC giving up, as is currently the form).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Submitted my appeal to POPLA, today.

They have emailed a summary of my appeal

 

 

Does anyone know, why they use the email address 'London Councils.gov.uk' ??

They aren't a London Borough. And they certainly aren't a .Gov establishment

 

 

Anyway, I told em to shove it, and to send me a pre estimate of loss :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received further correspondence today:

 

 

My appeal, will be looked at on, or after, the 14th May2014

lol.... They can take as long as they like, as far as I'm concerned

They must be very busy!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well done. As expected (post 14) they didn't even bother sending their 'evidence'

 

I will edit the thread title to reflect the result.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do!

 

 

All I did was cut and paste around 6 pages, of text, from the parking prangster website.

It didn't make much sense, as the way I pasted. But it had all the important phrases

Such as, 'contract with land owner' and show consequential loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...