Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think we need to change from the usual snotty letter and go for something which shows PE you are no mug and also puts pressure on the surgery.  It may well be that no-one has stood up to PE there and the surgery have not had the reality of court action hitting them yet.  How about -     Dear Parking Eye,   Re: PCN no. XXXXX, Letter Before County Court Claim   cheers for your LBC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.   I was an NHS patient that day and I can prove it.   Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at 175 Preston Road is complete pants.   You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is up to you.  If you continue I will of course add The Surgery Brighton* as a third party to the claim and then enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against both of you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday now that borders are reopening while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.   I look forward to your deafening silence.   COPIED TO THE SURGERY BRIGHTON*     *  You obviously know the real name of the place, correct this bit.   There's no rush, let's see what the other regulars think.
    • It might be an idea if you went through the letter that he has sent you and isolate each point and then comment on each point. This would be best done in a tabulated format. Have a two column Microsoft Word table with the point you have identified on the left, and your comments on the right. And maybe 1/3 column with a link to any evidence – SMS et cetera that you might have in support. He says that he didn't agree to the repair. What do you want to say about that? In terms of delivery charge, if you are entitled to a refund then I would say you are also entitled to the delivery charge. Although it was your choice, it is all part and parcel of the same contract and if the main contract fails then the ancillary contracts must fail as well.  
    • If the pipe is not passing over their land or vacate in water over their land then it is simply visually unsightly and unless there is some local agreement or law that prevents it, then you are completely in your rights. If your builders et cetera are getting hassled by them then I suggest that you start keeping a very detailed diary of any incidents – dates, times, who said what to who – and also don't get drawn into anything. If it starts to get nasty then keep us updated.  
    • So what happened to their claim ...as per my last post?
    • Evening    firstly, apologies if I’ve not posted in the right category    looking for assistance and advice with a boundary line issue regarding a new fence installation that I have got a builder to complete and the adjourning neighbour is now complaining that my gutter pipe is now visual to them    to describe the set up, I have a conservatory that has a gutter pipe the feeds across and then down the side and was previously concealed from the neighbours view but a timber fence panel (no view to us as on other side of conservatory panel) - the rest of the old fencing was that old green wire type fence so zero privacy. The new fencing is a 4 ft timber fence with 1ft trellis on top including new concrete posts and footing.  Our conservatory was built mid 90s, a few years ago the neighbour built a house extension with patio and both the house extension and patio went right up to the party wall - not fussed about that.  However because of this, there is no longer enough available space to fit a smaller timber panel to conceal the gutter from their view.   the gutter is well inside of my property but probably close to the party wall now   am I right in thinking that I am not legally obliged to do anything as the gutter flow doesn’t affect their property as it continues to flow into my garden and drain appropriate and all they are concerned about is a standard white pipe on view - there is nothing in the covenant to say they are entitled to right of a view    I plan on asking the builder to leave the yellow boundary string up as evidence that the pipe is not on the property and neither is the flow.    I am plan on requesting that they not alter the side of the fence in any way on their side because like the rest, it’s on my side of the boy arch and not with the party wall    in the space of 2 days, they have shouted at my builder many times in a day and had some suited old guy visit - not sure how VIP they were as no one would visit from the borough that quickly    I just want to do things legally, morally but with a sprinkle of not caving for an relatively easy life    any help much appreciated    cheers 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Sanity check please?


Godders
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5520 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, I've received a defence from Cobbetts and a couple of days later another letter firstly stating that my first charge was outside of the six years (from the date of claim they're right but I've calculated from the date I first approached NatWest) and secondly with a 50% offer.

 

The defence requested further info but didn't mention CPR part 18.

 

I've drated the following letter (you might recognise the odd line ;):D ) and I'd appreciate a bit of a sanity check to make sure I'm not missing anything or saying things I really shouldn't be.

 

Cheers

 

Nick

 

 

Claim No:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Further to the above referenced claim I Acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc dated 1st December 2006 and of your subsequent letter dated 4th December 2006.

 

In Para. 2 of your defence you state that you intend to request to strike out those charges occurring more than six years ago in accordance with the Limitations Act 1980 and then in Para. 5 you claim not to know the details of charges for which I’m claiming. Furthermore in your second letter dated 04 December 2006 you detail a specific charge which you contend I’m not entitled to claim for and you make reference to the schedule of charges I have supplied to your client which clearly lays out all of the detail you’ve requested in your defence with regard to the specifics of the claim.

 

This makes it clear to me that you are asking questions which, by your own admission, are already within your knowledge and as such I contend that this serves only as an attempt to obstruct, frustrate and intimidate a legitimate claimant acting in person. Due to the disingenuous elements of the defence as noted above I’m not willing to provide any further detail. If the court requests additional information then of course I would be willing to provide this.

 

As 2nd October 2006 was the date I approached your client requesting repayment of these charges, the claim is for monies taken from my accounts from 2nd October 2000. I am, of course, happy for the court to judge on whether this is reasonable. As things stand however my claim remains unchanged.

 

I decline your goodwill offer of £850 as settlement and request, once again, that you return to me all charges imposed on this account, plus interest and court fees totalling £1,698.00. If your client were to disclose exactly how they had arrived at the fees they have charged then it would be a relatively simple matter to calculate what proportion of each charge constituted a genuine loss to them and so come to a fair settlement figure. However seeing as this information has not been forthcoming then I have had no option but to claim for the full amount.

 

I will accept the sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder.

 

As such I will be willing to withdraw my claim upon receipt of full, unconditional settlement of my claim.

 

Furthermore I would not be willing to agree to any kind of confidentiality agreement.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

cc. Bath County Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their defence states that the first charge falls outside the 6 year timescale......this is normal for them to claim this, it was the same with my defence too. You are right in thinking that your six years start from the date you first sent your preliminary letter to Nat West, Cobbetts always try and lay on that your claim started the day you filed it through the courts, well that isn't the case.

Don't be alarmed that you didn't get a cpr18, I didn't either, a little less work for you.

 

The letter is fine, and totally clarifies your position.

 

Good work.

  • Haha 1

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Deller.

 

Yeah, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot by pointing towards specific charges and then claiming not to know the specific details of the charges we're claiming for. :-?

 

And the 'embarassment' bit makes me chuckle too, how a business entity is able to express 'embarassment' is beyond me. Was tempted to mention that in the letter but thought I'd better keep it simple.

 

I reckon they've got the YTS kids working on these. :D

 

Cheers

 

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too found it pretty hilarious how they totaly contradict themselves......one minute they're stating there are insufficiet particulars to make a claim against their client, then the next minute they make an offer. LOL

 

Nearly there mate.

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...