Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The new Credit 500, an index of the most influential people in consumer and commercial credit in 2022, has been finalisedView the full article
    • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is to launch two market studies and gather further information to investigate access to wholesale dataView the full article
    • I unexpectedly had a couple of hours free this afternoon and thought I would have a bash at helping simeon drafting his counterclaim.  Everybody please feel free to comment on and - hopefully improve it!  (In particular I am not sure if I've got the terminology correct vis a vis counterclaimant and defendant - so that may need correcting).   I am aware that Andyorch and BankFodder often stress the importance of keeping POCs to the bare minimum so as not to give away your case too much.  Whether I've given too much detail - or not enough - here, I don't know.  As I say, it's free to be pulled apart, but simeon seems to have nothing else.   Paras 1 - 16 (in black typeface) are simply a precis based on what has gone before and I've used them to put the counterclaim in context. Paras 17 - 19 (in red typeface) are simply my attempt to provide a basis for simeon's counterclaim.   At the end of the day this is simeon's documant - nobody else's.  simeon has to satisfy himself that it is both accurate and true, and also says what he wants it to say.  He will also have to order and sort out any attachments.  As I said earlier, I'm NOT giving legal advice!   Here goes... ===================================================================================================== Counterclaim   1.      The defendant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the 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 counterclaimant and that the defendant’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 counterclaimant provided the defendant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the defendant 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 defendant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the defendant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The defendant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the defendant asked the counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The defendant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the defendant’s work but the defendant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the defendant's work.  The inspector spoke to the defendant 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 counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the defendant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The defendant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).     11.  The defendant asked if the counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project1, the 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 counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the defendant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the defendant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the counterclaimant agreed to pay him £2000 on 18 August 2020.    14.  The counterclaimant subsequently paid the defendant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.     15.  It later came to the counterclaimant’s attention that the defendant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the counterclaimant’s property that the counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the defendant admitted he had done this.  The counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   16.    On 21 September 2020 the counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the defendant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the defendant 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 defendant.     17.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the defendant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   18.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the defendant also negligently caused substantial damage to the counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   19.  The counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the defendant to pay to the 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 defendant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the defendant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the defendant and referred to in para 18 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 15 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.     =================================================================================================================   What I'm not entirely clear about are two points.   First, it's not 100% clear to me whether simeon can properly claim the £3300 in paras 10 and 19(a) or not.  What I mean is, simeon is arguing that this work required by his structural engineer was always within the agreed scope of Project 1.  But it's not clear to me if it was within scope or whether it was entirely new and unforeseen work.  As I see it simeon can only counterclaim this amount from the builder if it had already been incuded in Project 1.   Second, the basis of the counterclaim still seems extraordinarily thin to me.  Is it sufficient at this stage just to allege that the builder caused any damage negligently and is therefore liable to pay to put it right.   That's it from me I think...    
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • Better.com boss Vishal Garg took time off after his handling of mass job cuts sparked outrage.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Group Nexus ANPR PCN - Westside Retail Park, Guiseley Leeds LS20 9NE ***Cancelled by Retail Park***


Recommended Posts

i seriously cannot ever and have never understood the logic of MSE and all the backdoor 'Mackenzie friends' operators or blatant SCAMMERS that they allow to charge fees via for help after sending a PM to the MUGS that go there for advise....if popla always wins SO WILL A COURT CASE GO FOR THE DEFENDANT...that hurts these PPC's far more than allowing the scammers on mSE to extort fees out of posters as well.....eh?...:crazy:

 

moneymaking scam!!

 

dx

  • Like 1

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

There isn’t a drop down for incorrect details so would have to put other 

also would you put keeper name in the appeal as it does ask for name & email address

 

i have put the following in the text box for the appeal 

 

PCN contains incorrect details

This is an appeal by the keeper. No driver details will be given.  Please dont try the usual group nexus trick of asking for driver details(as your way of trying to get round a non Pofa notice). This wont work and will be ignored.

Notice to keeper is non pofa so no keeper liability

This is an auto win at POPLA.

Please cancel or issue a Popla code where you will auto withdraw.

End

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:crazy:

  • Like 1

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 think you have to a bit more than that.

This an appeal by the keeper. 

 

As you already know the NTK is not compliant with PoFA. The PCN was allegedly issued on the 8th November 2021 for an apparent breach on the 29th October 2021.  The PCN was not received  until the 17th November calling in to question the issue date especially as the wording on the PCN failed to mention that the liability for the charge could be transferred to the keeper if the driver failed to pay.

 

Schedule 4 s9 [f] states that you must 

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

 

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

 

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

Your NTK does not warn me that you can transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper so fails to comply with the wording a PoFA compliant NTK .

 

You will be aware that for your NTK to be compliant it must follow the strictures in Schedule 4 s9 [2] "the notice must"

 

It follows therefore that I as keeper am not liable to pay the PCN nor can you assume that I am the driver and I have no intention of divulging the name of the driver in any case,

 

so I am asking that you  kindly cancel the PCN. Now that I have informed you of the situation any further pursuit of myself over this PCN  will be deemed as a breach of my GDPR which I understand may incur a charge in Court for you of £500 or so.

 

In the event that you do not accept my appeal, please forward a POPLA reference number to me so that I can appeal to them where I am confident that they will accept that you cannot pursue me as the keeper with a non compliant NTK and will cancel it.

 

Something along those lines would show them that you do know why their PCN is nor compliant so they should cancel.

 

  

Edited by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 19/11/2021 at 12:35, FTMDave said:

I've had a look at the retail park site  https://westsideshoppingpark.com/

 

They mention a 3-hour limit for parking, which is what your daughter has fallen foul of, but also that this is a recent changed and the T&Cs are shown on the signs - so the signs had better be pretty damn good.

 

I see it is Savills who administer the place, so i would e-mail them  [email protected]  and lay it on thick that (a) an elderly disabled person was involved and extra time has to be allowed for the disabled and (b) any "overstay" was due to consuming meals and thus bringing business to the retail park.  You demand Savills call the fleecers off.  You might get absolutely nowhere but nothing ventured ...

 

Do not identify the driver.  Say a party of people visited the retail park including an elderly disabled person and then later the driver (third person) got the demand for £100.

Thank you so much for your advice. I contacted them, explained the situation & they have cancelled it for me 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on your victory  👏 

 

Make sure you keep the correspondence from Savills just in case Group Nexus "forget" to do as they've been told.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to Group Nexus ANPR PCN - Westside Retail Park, Guiseley Leeds LS20 9NE ***Cancelled by Retail Park***

it will also help others in the future if you could put up your appeal text.

 

well done.

 

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

Excellent

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

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...