Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well it adds up which is an Apollo 11 achievement!   Does simeon need reminding again that it is HIS responsibilty to make sure that all the Exhibits are correctly labelled, ordered and numbered etc, and that they are all correctly cross-referenced in the particulars?  Because we can't check that remotely.   The only remaining thing (which I think would be helpful to have added but is not a necessity) is a list or schedule of exhibits.  It just helps to introduce the exhibits.  But simeon will have to produce that himself - so it may be advisable not to bother...   But I don't want to rock the boat any further and am happy with #165 - unless there are any glaring errors I've not noticed.   [EDIT:  cross posted with 166 and 167.  I will check 165 over as well]
    • No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work
    • The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.   If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.   I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.   It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.   If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).
    • 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 continuing 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.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye - zero planning permission - Belvoir Retail and Leisure Quarter. 46-48 High Street. Coalville LE67 3EF


Recommended Posts

i doubt they would take any notice at all.

 

now if it is fraud is another matter. and just about everything mentioned in the above post has been no diff in +5yrs, so why has no-one done it...urm...

 

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

I don't know why, but looking at previous posts about private parking tickets, one of the things you tell people to do is to see if signs etc. have planning permission.

 

If it makes no difference if they have or haven't then what is the point of telling them to find out?

 

It would be my guess that 90%+ of private parking company's do not have PP for their equipment yet they are fleecing the public of millions of pounds and getting away with it.

 

Anyway, I'll forget all about it and let them carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you wonder who they play golf with or if the councils just don't care.

the info regarding signs etc are ofcourse an important issue, and ofcourse is necessary weaponry to counter a court claim should one ever be raised.

 

there is ofcourse, and this has came up recently by one time new users that suddenly pop-up with wonderful info on specific threads they directly come too, to use this info to 'head-them-off-at-the-pass' type actions before it ever goes that far, and it's 'guaranteed to work' .

 

but thats what a forum is about.................but IMHO you need to be careful, we always say not to fire your bullets until necessary, rather than tip them off how you might defend a claim some weeks, months or even years in advance.

 

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 it grips everyone, but if there REALLY was a fraud route against whomever..., then why has it not been done to date? nothing has changed in years to make it 'an only till now' moment?

 

it's all very well these one-hit-wonders suddenly appearing on a forum with magical ideas, to me it's just like trump and his mate mypillow re the fake election fraud.. if they are that wonderful why not get on and do it rather than getting a mug to try it for them.

 

though i will say, through non public info via cag, i am very concerned to learn that this actually appears to point back to a very very respected website, that until this, many inc me & CAG had enormous respect for.

 

 

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

My investigations started eight years ago, when I made my first complaint to the BPA. That was immediately and unconditionally rejected, along with many others over a period of years, until I realised that every complaint would be batted away. Over the years, I estimate that many thousands of similar complaints have disappeared into the long grass. Should you complain, I would wager that your complaint will also be dismissed. You need to understand that the Trade Associations exist to protect their members, and their very existence depends upon income from ever-increasing numbers of parking charges. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!  So no, don't bother to complain to a Trade Association. After all, it is the failure of self-regulation that has inevitably led to the new statutory code that is being drafted.

 

Meanwhile, the DVLA has an ever-increasing revenue stream from selling keeper data and the question of whether their staff earn performance bonuses was never resolved, despite an FOI request. Their position is that it is for the Trade Associations to discipline their members, and that is correct. Sadly, they have no appetite to take action, and the many letters I have written over the years have achieved nothing. So don't

waste your time and effort complaining to the DVLA. 

 

As far as the local planning authorities are concerned,  and I have studied over 400 of them, they exist to

scrutinise developments (existing and proposed) to protect the environment. As far as advertisement consent is concerned, they assess projects in terms of amenity and public safety. Most parking signs are approved, content being immaterial, but occasionally signs are rejected because they cause clutter,

especially in sensitive sites (e.g. Listed sites).  Out of many thousands of developments I have only come across one where a sign was rejected because it obstructed sight lines and might be dangerous. So, again, there is little point writing to planning authorities - they have a presumption to consent.

 

According to para 11 of the Annex to the 2007 Advert Regs the Secretary of State considers that "...it would often be reasonable for local planning authorities to invite a person who appears to be contravening the Regulations to remove the advertisement, or to apply for consent, before they prosecute." However, he then goes on to state that: "In cases of blatant, deliberate or repetitive displays of advertisements, immediate prosecution may be the more appropriate course to secure the early removal of an unlawful advertisement".

 

Unauthorised advertising is a criminal offence, and Councils have a duty imposed under s.17 of the Crime and Disorder Act1998 to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in their area. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...