Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thats a defence for a court claim not a snotty letter.   you ignore their reply pack totally.     dx  
    • put up a redacted copy and i'll swap it out - hidden for now.   dx  
    • I really don't want to make this any more complicated than it is already, but can I ask a really stupid question?       Is it absolutely 100% clear that the judge has chucked out the builder's claim for £2866 and that no more work is required on the defence to that?  I'd just like to be certain that it's not the case that the original claim is still extant and is to be heard by the court, but that neither the claimant nor the defendant are permitted to change what they've already submitted to the court in respect of that original claim. (Does that make sense?  It's just that it's not as clear to me as it obviously is to Andyorch and FTMDave that the original claim from the builder is now dead.  But no doubt that is due to my lack of understanding!)   @simeon1964 - if Andyorch's interpretation of that order is correct (and his interpretation will always be better than mine!) then all you really need to concentrate on is justifying your counterclaim for £16000.   To do that you will need to demonstrate to the court several things: (1) that work you have already paid the claimant for was never completed by the claimant, and the value of that uncompleted work; (2) that damage you are claiming for actually exists; (3) that that damage was caused by the builder;  (4) that the builder caused that damage in such a way that he is legally liable to put it right (eg he carried the work out negligently); and (5) the cost of putting that damage right.   Can you do all that?   (If anybody else thinks I've got that wrong or that I'm telling simeon the wrong things to concentrate on - shout out and tell him!!!)
    • My thoughts exactly and yes that's exactly the point that niggled me and would have hoped they would show some common sense and leniency in a case such as this. Using a parking facility for an NHS service to attend an NHS service adjacent to it ?? We did mention in the letter to the surgery that we would be involving them if any further action was taken,!   So in terms of snotty letter, I have trawled the site and see a common theme in regard to the 5 or 6 key points that ned to be covered, I will top and tail it in due course but is the below what you are referring to in terms of the main body of the letter and does the first para apply in this case?   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].   2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.   3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.   5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.    6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Accompanying the letter was a reply form with tick boxes, I agree to the debt, some of the debt or I dispute the debt and then sections on how you will pay and if you need debt advice. Do I ignore these or send it back with the box marked I dispute the debt ticked?
  • Our picks

Young Vrs Lloyds TSB Plc


Janet-M
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5525 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

Claim No 6RH01211

issued 8/9/06

Bank charges Claimed £900.00 inc interest and costs

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any

doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...