Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just left the name not dacted. Can you sort this out please
    • 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 at Exhbibit-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 suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged 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 (Exhbibit-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 at ( 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 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.’.         Signed:                                          (  
    • I regret coming back onto this thread.   What is so difficult about dividing the figure of £16,577.12 into four separate amounts, especially when one is known at £3000?   When you filed your original counterclaim, how much did you want for completing the work?   When you filed your counterclaim, how much did you want for the damage?   When you filed your counterclaim, how much did you want for the steel beam?    
    • not yet. I will post once I receive it.    Thanks for your support Bank Fodder.   Regards BB
    • I will try my best. Don't have much choice
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Prosecution for not wearing seatbelt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2826 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

Dear All,

 

Just to put it on records,

I was not wearing a seatbelt, and was driving, until I reached a junction where I spotted a Police officer on motorbike, as I turned the corner I decided to wear the seatbelt, and a few minutes later the police officer caught-up with me, gave me a ticket to pay the £100 penalty.

Naturally, as a human nature I did not want to pay the fine, and requested a court hearing, and the courts dismissed the prosecution case, as although I was spotted not wearing a seatbelt, but when the officer actually stopped me I was wearing the seat belt, so no offence was committed.

 

Overzealous, and meaningless prosecution, and waste of tax payers money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to disagree. You got off on a technicality and should be grateful.

 

Many moons ago I worked in the motor insurance claims industry and the devastation caused by people not wearing seat belts was huge. If you want to risk your neck whilst breaking the law it's up to you, but don't be surprised if you don't get away with it if you're caught again, and I hope to God you don't hit anything and pay the price for the rest of your life.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree as well. An offence, (a dangerous offence) was committed, you were lucky.

There's nothing clever about driving without a seat belt.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

when i was a child, i never wore a seat belt.

they then brought the new law in.

 

my mother, bless her fought tooth and nail with my dad, that i should not have to wear a seatbelt lol

 

that her hand would protect me if we were in an accident.

 

times have changed. fortunately my dad won and seatbelt sanity prevailed. Fortunately we were never in an accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he was being over zealous or maybe he was going to give you a ticking off but you said something to wind him up

 

Overall though it is a crime . Should a child abuser get off because no one saw them actually abuse the child, a rapist because no one saw them rape. Not wearing a seat belt doesn't just put you at risk it puts others at risk as well.

 

My only concern is that justice should be fair and even.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, to throw a fly into the ointment air bags are much better than seatbelts at preventing or reducing injury to occupants of vehicles and the seatbelt laws are now outdated. seatbelts cause several tyoes of injury such as broken legs and pelvises due to "submarining" and internal organ damge caused by the belt restraining the skeleton but the internal organs still having enough momentum to bash into the ribcage. As Vehicle design changes these things should be looked at again but until they are I will continue to wear my seatbelt knowing that there is no arguable defence for not douing so, even though i have better safety features built into my cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, to throw a fly into the ointment air bags are much better than seatbelts at preventing or reducing injury to occupants of vehicles and the seatbelt laws are now outdated. seatbelts cause several tyoes of injury such as broken legs and pelvises due to "submarining" and internal organ damge caused by the belt restraining the skeleton but the internal organs still having enough momentum to bash into the ribcage. As Vehicle design changes these things should be looked at again but until they are I will continue to wear my seatbelt knowing that there is no arguable defence for not douing so, even though i have better safety features built into my cars.

 

All in all. Wrong !!

 

Airbags are designed to work in conjunction with seat-belts. Most if not all cars will not deploy the airbags if the seatbelt is not fastened.

The reason being, forward motion Collision. Your body continues forward motion .... Forward and up due to the position and legs contacting the pedals/bulkhead. Airbag deploys = broken neck when your slammed into the roof/screen of the vehicle.

I have a nursing/medical background btw.

 

Yea seatbelts can cause injury by injuries from the way they hold you in. But are far more likely to prevent more injury coming into contact with the vehicle interior as described above.

Organs would carry on moving and suffer similar injury such as spleen rupture, aortic dissection or fatal spinal injury with out a seatbelt on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

having seen a child go through a windscreen because of not wearing a seatbelt, tells me, the belt is there not only for my safety but for the safety of others..you where very lucky you got off on a technicality..other people who do not wear seatbelts are still suffering years after the accident they had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, in the US, where seatbelts are not compulsory, the percentage of those killed in RTA's who were wearing a seatbelt was 56.4% and those who werent was 43.6% of the total deaths. Seatbelt wearing averages 84% so the raw figues suggest risk of death with seatbelt is about 1/3rd of that without seatbelt (no separate figures for air bags as CDC dont have them as they are keen on making seat belts compusory). There are a lot of difference in age group and type of collision, for example young people have the lowest rate of wearing seatbelts but the highest risk of death in drink-driving and the over 70's seem to wipe out everyone they hit because they are worst at driving the wrong way down the carriageway but they die wearing their seat belt. The motor industry is well aware of the US citizen's rights to do what they want and sue when they do something stupid hence the airbags design to be effective without a seat belt. Chose US figures because of quantity of data and also because there is a large enough comparator population to make it meaningful.

 

My observations on injury typical of seatbelt wearing come from when I trained as an ambulance paramedic and went on courses here and abroad in extrication techniques. This was before airbags were common so I cannot compare the injuries I mentioned withthose sustained when only airbag deployed by my own experience.

I will still wear my seat belt and not just because the law says so but because I think that I will lessen the effects of most impacts on myself by doing so. I wouldnt jump out of a plane without a reserve chute unless there was no choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother I think your calculation is wrong

 

Wearing seatbelt =56.4% fatality

Not wearing seatbelt = 43.6%

 

In which case that statistic shows it is safer NOT to wear a seatbelt

 

I do not however like statistics as they can easily be manipulated and there is no comparison of speed of impact, urban , motorway, rural driving, night v day, wet v dry the list goes on

 

On top of that the laws vary from state to state http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother I think your calculation is wrong

 

Wearing seatbelt =56.4% fatality

Not wearing seatbelt = 43.6%

 

In which case that statistic shows it is safer NOT to wear a seatbelt

I think you've misunderstood the stats (which to be fair I did also the first time I read the post). The overall split of road deaths is that 56% were wearing a seat belt and 44% were not - so on a simple level more people die whist wearing a seatbelt. However we're also told that 84% of drivers wear a seatbelt, so presumably the remaining 16% don't. So we have:

 

Wearing seatbelt = 84% of drivers accounting for 56% of deaths

Not wearing seatbelt = 16% of drivers accounting for 44% of deaths

 

So clearly, wearing a seatbelt greatly reduces the likelihood of dying in a car crash

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother I think your calculation is wrong

 

Wearing seatbelt =56.4% fatality

Not wearing seatbelt = 43.6%

 

In which case that statistic shows it is safer NOT to wear a seatbelt

 

I do not however like statistics as they can easily be manipulated and there is no comparison of speed of impact, urban , motorway, rural driving, night v day, wet v dry the list goes on

 

On top of that the laws vary from state to state http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html

 

 

Do not pass statistics 101, do not collect £200. Your analysis is flawed.

 

56.4% fatality for seatbelts, but from 84% of drivers.

43.6% fatality for no seatbelt, but from 16% of drivers.

 

So, looking at RISK, rather than % fatality:

Say we take 1000 fatalities. 564 wearing seatbelts, 436 not.

 

At the start of the journey, for every 84 people wearing seatbelts, 16 weren’t.

 

564/84 is 6.71, so for every 564 people who died wearing seat belts, 16x6.71 or 107 set out on their journey not wearing seat belts.

 

So, if the risk of death was the same wearing a seatbelt or not, the expected number of non-seatbelt deaths should be 107, but it wasn’t : it was 436 : 4 times the amount if the risk was the same, so the risk of dying if not wearing a seatbelt is some 4 times that of if wearing a seatbelt.

 

The stats don't show it is safer to not wear a seatbelt. It would do, for those RAW mortality percentages, if the % of drivers who wore a seatbelt was 56.4% or less, but it is some 84%, on the figures stated.

 

Mind you, they say 75% of people have no trouble with basic maths, but the other third struggle somewhat ....... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno what or why you are arguing, the law says you 'will' wear one so stats matter not

 

The stats matter if trying to persuade politicians to repeal a bad law, or not to repeal a good one ........

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is my reason for not liking stats as they can be interpreted almost anyway you want. By a little omission I could have proven that wearing a seat belt caused more deaths

I am afraid that we could number crunch, give different weightings to different circumstances , compare states with seat belt laws against those without, states with high proportion of city dwellers such as , I imagine NY against say Nebraska

 

Lies, Damn Lies and then there are statistics

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wear a seatbelt .... never will

And have an exemption certificate, to cover me.

 

 

They are available, if you have a valid reason.

 

Well whoopee you. Another silly post that has nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's two silly post's then!

 

 

Seatbelt law, is unnesassary. We are all adults

Whatever the stats say.

 

 

The stats also say that obesity, and type B diabetes kill

It doesn't stop fat people and keyboard warriors, from eating too much

Even if it is humble pie,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's two silly post's then!

 

 

Seatbelt law, is unnesassary. We are all adults

Whatever the stats say.

 

 

The stats also say that obesity, and type B diabetes kill

It doesn't stop fat people and keyboard warriors, from eating too much

Even if it is humble pie,

 

 

 

Why are you exempt if you don't mind me asking please?

 

Also why are seat belt laws unnecessary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I have issues with not just the seat belt law but many other state control type laws . Of course maybe forcing seat belts not only saves lives but also saves the country vast amounts of money but I have never seen any figures to say how much.

 

Differing views are all good, wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2826 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...