Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   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 £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   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 challenged the Claimant 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 (Attachment 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 (Attachment 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 Attachment 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 Attachment 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 £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) 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; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
    • Hi I'm after some help with trying to get my wedding car hire deposit returned. I'll provide a bit of a chronological background to try and keep things clear. January 2020 - Began booking church, venue and other services for our Wedding for 29th May 2021 - 100+ guest during the day, and 200+ on the night. 25 Jan 2020 - Attended Exclusive Wedding Cars (EWC herein). Booked and Paid deposit for 1 Beetle and 3 Camper Vans = £400. Corona came along and we were in and out of lockdowns. Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) brought out some guidance for Wedding Services 7 Sept 2020. In mid January, we got back in contact with EWC via text, expressing our concerns over the wedding and Government imposed Public Health measures(we were currently in lockdown and no idea when things would return to normal), and that we were looking to move the wedding forward 1 year. 3 Feb 2020 - Emailed to cancel our Wedding date of 29th May 2021, after text had been sent and Steve replied asking for it to be sent via email. We asked if 28th May 2022 was available. 5 Feb 2020 - EWC replied to say they could not fulfill our new date due to other commitments. 7 Feb 2020 - We replied that we would have to cancel our booking with EWC, but would be in touch if dates changed again. 22 Feb 2021 - Government published Guidance (Roadmap out of Lockdown) - Stated, “Not before 17th May…Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings…”. *Note again our wedding was for 100/200+ guests at the Stadium of Light, so not reasonable to have the same venue for 30 people. 5 Jan 2022 -  Called and spoke with Steve to see if they had any availability (any cars at all) for our date. He was driving and so couldn’t confirm.                         Exchanged some texts on the same day to which he replied in the evening, that they had nothing, but to keep in touch due to cancellations. 15 Jan 2022 - Started an email thread asking about deposits and their return. EWC went straight on the defensive saying we wouldn't be getting it back and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy as we were not given a copy when we booked. 17 Jan 2022 - Emailed to ask for the return of our deposit. EWC replied that since we cancelled within 4 months of the wedding date, they now wanted the remaining balance of £850, and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy of the contract again, and that we would seek legal advice. EWC replied with ever increasing sarcasm, saying we would receive notice demanding the remaining balance of £850 in the post. I replied that if they didn't supply a copy of the contract I would send them a SAR.   20 Jan 2022 - Sent a letter via Post and email, asking EWC to reconsider their position. We stated we believe the contract to have terms that would be deemed unfair; terms that were not clear; there is a ‘Significant imbalance’ concerned with the parties’ rights and obligations, which can be seen as disproportionate financial sanctions; their ‘Terms and Conditions’ appear to seek to remove the consumers rights, while removing their obligations, but allowing them to make an unjustified windfall gain. We also stated that we believe the guidance and statements by the CMA, suggested that since the wedding we had planned couldn't go ahead (we'd be breaking the law with the numbers we wanted) on our planned date, and that a reasonable person wouldn't expect the wedding to go ahead when we cancelled the date, that we should receive a full refund as they were not out of pocket. We gave EWC 14 days to respond...it took them 6 hours, basically refusing our request while coated in lashings of sarcasm and arrogance.   I'm guessing my next step would be Letter before Action? Any help much appreciated. Attached is the "Contract" - removed the signatures, but you can see the whole contract. The booking form has no Ts&Cs or costs of any kind, just addresses, personal info and the vehicles.     EWC-Contract.pdf
    • The firm's shares fell more than 20% as investors worry that demand for its pricey exercise machines is waning.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Who to sue: contractor or subcontractor?

Recommended Posts

We purchased an old country home that needed significant work. Part of this work involved demolishing a number of semi-derelict outbuildings including what was the chapel, the old mill and stables. The wall of one of these outbuildings - the mill - was attached to the main house.

We paid a heavy machinery firm around £9,000 to demolish these outbuildings. As part of their service, they specified on their quote/ invoice that they would subcontract
the cutting of the mill wall to another firm of builders (the firm we contracted would then use their bulldozers to demolish the wall when cut). We learnt after the fact that the "builders" were cowboys, friends of theirs and had never done anything like this in their lives.

We were not at the property when the wall was cut but understand, from the frantic phone calls the cowboys made to us after the fact, that they cut the mill wall in the wrong place and damaged the main house. A huge structural crack appeared, we had to employ a structural engineer and carry out urgent remedial work to the tune of £4k.

We sent a letter of demand to the demolition firm we paid, and their defence is two-fold: 1) nothing to do with them because they didn't do the cutting 2)  we should have known the risks. He ended his letter with SEE YOU IN COURT (yes, capitalised!).

My position is 1) they chose and employed the subcontractor 2) we had no contract with the subcontractor and did not even know how much they had been paid 3); subcontractor and main company should have used reasonable skill 4) by undertaking the work they accepted responsibility that it would be done properly.

Do I have a case in law? From looking at Companies House and Google, the director of the firm we contacted with has a history of making himself bankrupt when sued. However, his limited company is turning over a tidy sum ( £500k/yr) and I imagine he has insurance. The firm of cowboys, in contrast, seem to have very little in the way of assets.

I would be representing myself in court.

Thanks so much

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would see your main contractor in contract.

If there was a negligence issue then you might want to see the subcontractor – but you are best off proceeding in contract.

I understand that the value of the claim would be about £4000. Of course already you have identified a problem of enforcing the judgement against a company which apparently routinely Phoenixes itself. That is a real problem.

What is the name of the contractor and what is the name of the subcontractor?

You say that they have form for winding up their companies and then starting new ones. How often has this happened in the past?


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a brute and thug, so I'd be wary of putting the name of his firm or that of his cronies online, until we win and then I'd plaster it everywhere. 


He's disappeared/gone bankrupt/dissolved his company 4 times that I can see. Apparently an open secret in the community but we've just moved and didn't know. 


We're in Scotland (just moved from England). Not sure if this makes a difference?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are wrong. You should be exposing his name and his company as hard as possible because that is an excellent defence and also an incentive to him.
It will be difficult to help you fully – particularly in relation to enforcement if we don't have the information we need.

You need to start collecting information about his bankruptcies et cetera and why he has done this. If you say that people in the community know about it then you should start talking to them.

Being in Scotland can make a big difference to the claim system you use – unless you have an address in England. What is not clear is whether the contract was made in Scotland or in England

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...