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

Lowell now chasing old Vanquis CC debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1678 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

Absolutely ...you must meet your priority debt payments first...this will hold...send a CCA request in the first instance...watch how their attitude and approach changes.

 

Regards

 

Andy

I sent the prove it letter and they came back with quiet a strange response.

 

They gave me the details of when the account was opened and close

A list of transactions

 

And the following statement:

 

"Due to the time that has passed since this account came to Lowell in 2012, we are unable to request any documentation and would recommend contacting Vanquis directly should you require any additional information"

 

And that they will cease any further collections for 30 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not your problem to resolve but theirs

should try and fleece people..

without carrying out even basic checks

 

so, as was suggested by andy

you should have sent a CCA request.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dx said it does not matter what they said to your prove it request

 

You need to make a S78 request because if they try to make a court claim against you , non compliance is a defence

 

However

If they have gone quiet you may decide to lay low for a while

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

thank you

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...