Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I agree with all that.   Can I just add that I've gone through the defence again and tried to make a bit more sense of it - and perhaps try to address or skip over some of the questions asked by FTMDave.   Can I make clear I am not criticising what FTMDave has already done - I think that was a great job.  It's just that I have found the OP's explanations still very unclear and difficult to understand so I've tried to make more sense of it.  If what I've done is just making the whole thing more complicated and confusing then by all means ignore it.   Bits I suggest deleting altogether are struck through.  eg this   Bits in red are my suggestions/improvements.  (Or maybe they make things worse!)   Bits in blue and bold are my questions.   Whether this is really an improvement or not I don't know.  Feel free to ignore...   ===============================================================================   1.      In this Defence:   a.       References to the paragraph numbers are in reference to the paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim issued on 25/02/2021.   b.      A matter that is not admitted is a matter which the defendant is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove.   c.       The defendant adopts where appropriate the abbreviations and terms in the Particulars of Claim for convenience only and without making any admissions thereby.   2.      The defendant admits paragraph 3.1 of the claimants claim.   3.      The defendant denies paragraph 3.2 of the claimant's claim. The true agreement between the parties involved the defendant and claimant agreeing that the claimant would undertake building work (Project 1) at the defendant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas. These were; and named Project 1   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   4.      During the process of the contract agreement above   Subsequently the claimant was also engaged on further work to do the attached on 07/09/2020 for a total amount of £2,580.00 called (Project 2).   5.      In relation to the installation of a new beam and the above this work was agreed between the parties  It was agreed between the claimant and the defendant that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the claimant's work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   6.      Between June and July 2020 the defendant 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.   7.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13/08/2020.   8.      It was agreed between the parties that the total sum for the completion of all the claimant's work regarding Project 1 would be £4300 called project 1.   9.      It was agreed between the parties that the claimant’s fees for the work would be paid through three instalment payments. 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. As such three payments were to be made each of £1433.33.   10.   The builder arrived at arrived at work at 2pm on 13/08/2020 when a contract agreement was drawn up. A cheque for the first payment was issued on the day and he worked for two hours.   11.   On 24/08/2020 the builder approached me to book an appointment with the building inspector to inspect his work as the work was approaching midway and he would need the mid-way agreement money, I obliged and a second cheque was issued. He had carried out about 25 hours of work time in the property, attached is my diary of his work. The appointment was confirmed with the building inspector and builder the informed.   12.  The building inspector showed up and but the builder, having promised to be there, was absent.  The inspector walked around inspecting inspected the builder’s work and making comments in anger was obviously displeased by the standard of work.  I called the builder and pass the phone to the building inspector.  All I heard from the inspector was “Do you know what you are doing", repeatedly, “why are you not here you knew I was coming?” followed by describing the mode of doing the work to him. After the conversation with the builder he then asked me for a piece of paper and he started to explain the process which might be useful to the builder when he came.  The inspector spoke to the builder by telephone, asking him why he was absent and questioning him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone also and left a list of instructions with the defendant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the structural engineer with his findings and the defendant should hear from the engineer soon.   13.   The builder came late that afternoon and I handed him the paperwork given by the building inspector and the builder assured me he would sort it out, that he now had an idea how to go about it, to which I said the inspector would communicate with the structural engineer who would be contacting us so he should wait and he agreed.   14.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning.  The builder then said that he did not have the appropriate tools for piling.  It was suggested to him that tools could be hired, but he did not respond. “But you can hire them most people do.” There was no answer. The structural engineer then introduced another tradesman who was able to do it for £3,000.00 and I paid the that tradesman to do the piling.   15.    The defendant explained to the claimant that that £3000 would have to be deducted from the agreed price for Project 1 as that work had originally been agreed in that project.  I then turned to my builder after payment that you are now £3,000.00 in deficit but we will sort this out after the rest of the work is complete.  [Is all of that true?  I don’t know.  Is there evidence it was included in Project 1?]   16.  On 02/09/2020 he the claimant asked for more work to cover his losses having paid lost the £3,000.00 for underpinning to another tradesman.  I agreed and I asked him to price the job. His quotes were outrageous.  Little did he know that I had had quotes from other people and the internet.  e.g. he quoted me £1800.00 to plaster three rooms as against another plasterer who quoted £850.00. When I showed him the plasterer's quote, he was not shocked, I told him that, because he was on site I would pay him £900.00 final and he accepted. See attached builder quote for Project 2.  [I think that is all waffle and I don’t understand it]   16.  The claimant asked if the defendant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project1, the defendant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580.   17.   For this reasons the builder was able to obtain a second contract from me for the amount of £2,580.00 signed on 07/09/2020 which I called Project 2, being, I believe the only way I could compromise the £3,000.00 paid to the tradesman. Again the contract agreement was identical to the initial contract for £4,300.00 (Project 1).   [I don’t understand this paragraph.  Delete it?]   18 17.  Both the initial project 1 and project 2 started to go badly and I made several complaints to him, e.g. bad pointing.  His response was all it needed was a good wash down and this bad pointing remains so to date not washed.  As work commenced on Project 2 and continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the defendant had occasion to make several complaints to the claimant regarding the standard of work   19.  18.  Around 15/09/2020 barely a week the builder had got the project 2 job, he was trying to ask for money for project 2.  Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the claimant demanded payment.  After a period of negotiation I agreed to pay him £2000.00 on 18/09/2020.    20.  On 18/09/2020 I handed a cheque for £2,000.00 to the builder.  He insisted on payment in cash even though my previous two payments had been by cheque.  I was only able to withdraw £1500.00 which I paid him.  The atmosphere was extremely hostile and under a steam of pressure I mistakenly wrote that the contract was agreed as £2,800.00 instead of £2,580.00.  However, balance at completion was correctly indicated at £1080.00.   [Way too complicated to follow.  Delete?]    19.  I paid the claimant £1500 in cash.  We agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   21.  We both signed the contract.  The builder left.  Later we saw the builder and his colleague on my CCTV camera walking away with my steel beam that had come off lintel. When I rang him and told that I had seen him on CCTV he admitted what he had done. I have now included the cost of the pair of the steel beam in my schedule of loss.  He charged me for work during which he stole my material to do the work without refunding the material used. This was the beginning of my dissatisfaction with the builder.   20.  It came to the defendant’s attention that the claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the defendant’s property that the defendant is clear either belonged to the defendant or had been paid for by the defendant in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the claimant admitted he had done this.  The defendant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   22.  21.  On 21/09/2020 I highlighted and sent a snagging list to the builder.  On 26/10/2020, he sent somebody to my house to clean up plaster damage to the wall and to the living room laminated flooring almost four weeks since he had last worked on the house.  The person he sent made a mess of the job.  I then updated the snagging list and gave a copy to his colleague who was doing the cleaning to give to him and emailed him a copy and sent copies by post to his address.  Over a month later he 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   23.  22.  The next contact with the builder was on 12/01/2020 when I saw a note on the door demanding  he demanded 2,800.00. to which I immediately responded in my letter dated 17/01/2021 for asking him to explain how I owed the that amount as all that had been agreed as outstanding on Project 2 was £1080. so that I can deal with his claim. As I had no response from him on 05/02/2021 I sent him a recorded delivery pre-action notice.   24.  23.  The claimant builder then acknowledged my pre-action notice by sending me notice to pay pay £2,866 by 26/02/2021 otherwise he would take me to court. I therefore waited for his court claim to defend and counterclaim.   25.  The builder's court notice arrived and this was the beginning of assessing the cost of the damage and uncompleted work by the builder, by inviting tradesmen to come to the property to assess and give me quotes. More information was also sorted from the internet. Where I am not able to get accurate information or tradesmen to give me a quote I have left it as blank or TBA (to be assessed) on my schedule of loss, attached to this statement.  [Is this relevant here  Delete]   24.  For the above reasons the defendant denies the claimant’s claim and seeks to make the counterclaim detailed below.   [Does that seem right?  I don’t know?]
    • Go ring the court. Have they paid rhe fee yesterday?? What date is the hearing?    
    • Should there be a word in front of possible, Simeon? I'm not sure what you're asking.    HB
    • Search using our enhanced google search box Prescribed terms   Pers id simply now totally ignore Philips. They are nothing but scammers. Not one thread involving them here has ever gone anywhere. Dx
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Post 2007 - Marshall Ward - Capquest


sytra
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1873 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

Hi,

Been on Forum for ages and managed to win all but one claim that has been brought against us with advice from here.

 

However, this one is confusing me a little as not had to do it in a while.

 

 

My wife had a Marshall Ward catalogue taken out in Aug 07 so after the April changes,

 

 

everything was fine until 2012 when we got into a bit of trouble

one thing led to another and she got defaulted,

 

 

in 2013 Capquest aquired the debt,

we CCA'd them,

they sent a recon agreement and then all went quiet.

 

Oct 2016 my wife starts to get letters again from Capquest and now passed over to Restons.

 

 

We have SAR Shop Direct as we know the account has a few hundred in charges, and sent a pre action letter to Restons.

 

Now I know the Default is invalid on at least one point

but the recon CCA that capquest sent in 2013 I am not sure it is complete and correct.

 

 

I understand that post 2007 CCA have very little wriggle room.

I am going to be sending off another CCA to Capquest see if they can get anything this time.

 

1: Dates, it is dated by them nearly 4 months before the account was opened. Is this valid?

 

2: It has a term under key information that says "Details of up to date charges in relation to each of these matters are available from us" . They never sent anything relating to the charges mentioned within the CCA, do they still have to include everything mentioned?

 

3: Final agreement, again is dated 2010, the account was terminated in 2012, are these correct

 

4: Neither agreement has a tick box just a sig box, Is this right?

 

Does any one have a copy of the original T & C's from Marshall Ward Spring 2007 and ISME from Autumn 2012, I am sure I have seen somewhere that the 2011 /12 agreements actually mentioned the £12 default charges whereas the agreements I have don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the mail order forum.

 

so you haven t got a claimform yet?

 

can you scan to one PDF what you've been sent.

 

the T&C and agreement copy should be in the SAR if you are lucky

do those match what was in the DCA's CCA return?

 

and whats this pre action letter to rectums for?

charges reclaims go to the original creditor

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

I don't see any logic in sending numerous CCA requests out, one is enough.

 

As for the DN, it matters not that it is faulty, they can issue an enforceable at a time that suits them, all it means is that you could use it as a stalling tactic if needed?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the mail order forum.

 

so you haven t got a claimform yet?

 

can you scan to one PDF what you've been sent.

 

the T&C and agreement copy should be in the SAR if you are lucky

do those match what was in the DCA's CCA return?

 

 

No, a claimform hasn't been sent yet, but we are expecting one.

Will scan a copy asap, the T&C nor agreement were in the original SAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the DN, it matters not that it is faulty, they can issue an enforceable at a time that suits them, all it means is that you could use it as a stalling tactic if needed?

 

I know they can issue another when they find out it is faulty if they can be so bothered, however I won a claim a couple of years ago part of which was a flawed DN in that one the DJ decided the original DN along with the POC was enough to throw the claim out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...