Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I can't read it in detail now, but just skimming over it:   1.  Where is the title?  Didn't we say "Particulars of Counterclaim"?   2.  Where is para 19 and 20?   3.  I think FTMDave suggested putting the individual subtotals and Exhibit numbers against para 18(a) - (d) to make it clearer for the judge?   4.  what is this £3000?    "A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling"   Isn't that £3000 already included in 18(a)???????   5.  Why are there two 18(c)?   6.  I don't understand what this means:     A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling,                                                      (ii) Rubble truck £387.12                                                     (iii) £250.00 to Mellor the roofer   The two priced quotes in respect of items (b) (1) Cheshire Bespoke Building Limited for £5,190.00,  and (2) Mellor Roofing Specialist. (c) – see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim   7.  Does the last sentence need a paragraph number as appropriate?   Read #131 et seq again...    
    • Why not ring the contravention unit (sic) of the council first. Find out why this has happened, but I've a funny feeling it will result in you using the appropriate forms in that link.   They might deal with the bailiffs for you, as there appears to be some comms breakdown .
    • My final ticket:      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; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above. (d). the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.   A receipts in respect of 3 items (a) - see Attachment 1 – Page-4-8 for:   (i) £3,000.00 GTM piling,                                                      (ii) Rubble truck £387.12                                                     (iii) £250.00 to Mellor the roofer   The two priced quotes in respect of items (b) (1) Cheshire Bespoke Building Limited for £5,190.00,  and (2) Mellor Roofing Specialist. (c) – see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.     The defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant is claiming 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day the       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.’.    
    • I can't say for certain whether it is all paid up but it certainly suggests that you are getting any more trouble in the future. However, come back to us if they start writing
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Lost Laptop sent through hermes booked via Parcel 2 go


Recommended Posts

i just had a mediation call, i was seeking £291 including court fee

i explained everything to mediator discussed my consumer right s49 and how they have breached the contract.

 

also told mediator that laptop was in the list of non compensation items on their website so buying insurance for the item they already say they dont compensate was insane.

 

they only offered £150 which i declined mediator went back to them and called back and said they haven't increase the offer i said i will take it to court then. she said i will now receive instructions from court.

 

i am really feeling down now, thought it will be sorted today reading all mediation success stories i was quite hopeful 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry it didn't work out as we expected – but it is not the end of it. I'm afraid that you will not have to wait to the hearing date and put your case there.

However, in the very few cases which apparently have gone to hearing, we never hear back from the claimant and our impression is that the courier company reaches out to the claimant and tries to settle privately and in confidence.

That may well be what will happen here although I can't guarantee it. Don't forget we are here to support you and if you do get some message from them saying that they would like to speak to in confidence then I would suggest that you contact me in confidence on our admin email address and then we can help you off the forum to settle this matter.

It is inconceivable that they would want to go to court to have their insurance scheme tested in this way. I'm still very optimistic that it will settle outside court – but if not then I'm extremely optimistic that you will win.

 

By the way, I forgot to say – well done on standing your ground. I know means that you didn't get a result at the moment – but you stood your ground and you showed them that you are going to be pushed around. Excellent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking as i have seen hermes are better in paying i have seen in some cases. Can i still put the claim on them if this doesnt go successful. 
Do you have examples here where parcel 2 go paid near to full to people ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that we've had so many stories on the forum that I am unable to keep track. I expect that we have but I'm afraid you would have to find them.

It may well be that Hermes are more malleable – I'm really not sure – but please don't be downhearted. Although there is an unwelcome delay, your chances are just as good as they might have been with Hermes.

You aren't looking for them to do you a favour here. You're simply looking to establish your rights. Get into the mindset that they are acting unjustly and against the law and that you are entitled to have your money back.

Get into that mindset and get angry about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not able to find a single successful mediation case against parcel2go , however lot of successful stories sorted during mediation against Hermes. i am now bit terrified if i will be able to face them in court as they might have a professional lawyers to deal with it thats why they are so confident and stayed firm during mediation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

utter rubbish stop worrying.

you'll be fine

stand your ground for full refund . do not give in !!

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

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...