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

How is this possible?


JakeGil
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, can someone tell me how this is possible


I work for a fairly big haulage firm and have over the last week covered my boss who is of with Covid and I have seen something I have never seen before


What appears to be happening is that the drivers don't pay for over night parking at various moto and road chef sites which normally costs £25 for the night.  

 

They do this with the intention of getting a parking notice, The parking notice is then received and they pay some bloke from Birmingham £10 for each one and then each ticket gets cancelled (apparently he has never failed to cancel these particular tickets) so the company saves £15 a time and this has spread to several other haulage firms


How on earth does the company and the guy who does it get away with it? has been going on for years by the looks of it and not done by accident

 

it seems like they are intentionally getting a ticket as the person he uses knows he can get them oFf and does it by the dozen.f

 

  I haven't said anything to anyone else in the company and its interesting it doesn't seem to involve any other parking firm


Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One scenario could be that the PCNs are shams-ie not issued by the parking company monitoring the car park. Perhaps issued by an employee of the parking company who then gets £10 from your drivers. Can't explain why your drivers would get involved with it if they aren't paying for the £25 anyway. 

But the guy getting the £10 per ticket is doing ok out of it. I suspect that your company is not the only company doing it. 

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got copies of them and they look genuine, i went to the company (parking firms website) and the pcn numbers are genuine

 

The drivers appear to have been told you don't need to pay for parking at certain sites and the company will deal with , the company gets the paper work and emails over to the person dealing with them who sends in a paypal invoice each week

 

I posted this on another forum and they have said it appears to be fraud so I am going to tell my boss he needs to stop doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why?

who it harming.?

all speculative invoice are almost fraud themselves anyway so...

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 was just going of what someone said on the mse parking page

If it isnt fraud then maybe not a problem.  I think i was more shocked by how long its been happening and the ease of them doing it, thats why it appears to have spread to other haulage firms 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could take a photocopy of a PCN and I doubt most people would know the difference between it and the original. On the other hand getting them consecutively numbered could be more difficult. Though it may be that there is a small number of them that are reprinted all the time since nobody really looks at PCN numbers nor remembers one for a couple of weeks ago-especially as they are done and dusted pretty quickly.

 

Whatever is going on there is a scam involved. The person who collects the £10 is involved [it is possible that other share in that payout. But your company also benefits. And your manager may presumably have known if they knew that the standard overnight parking was £25 yet invoices received are only for £10 and only because he is off ill has this been uncovered. Perhaps, as this is all conjecture on my part.

 

If the company is involved how high up does it go and could you get embroiled in the fallout. That is something for you to resolve and it should not be discussed here for your own protection .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you , ive checked and there to many different parking notices, I found a couple from last week and I went to the parking companies website and they already have appeals in progress

Reading the MSE thread it seems that someone is making use of what might look like a loophole , charging for it and making money due to the volumes involved.  Then the company i work for and others are saving money because they appear to know they can make use of this loophole

I am not however going to identify any of the parties involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to speak to him about it when he is back in the office.  It is no exaggeration when I say over the years (quite a number) it appears to have been several thousand tickets 

Edited by JakeGil
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a loser (or rather eventually losers) in this situation.

a) The provider of the overnight parking are not receiving the payment due for the facility.

 

b) The current situation with driver shortages, which is affecting delivery of goods to everyone, is due in part to poor overnight facilities putting off drivers continuing in the job and difficulty in recruiting new drivers to replace European drivers no longer working here since Brexit..

 

Facilities, including secure parking, showers etc., can only be paid for out of the income stream from those drivers paying their nightly charge. Irrespective of any criminality, there is an ethical question here. I make no apology if this sounds 'po-faced'.

Edited by Gick
grammar
  • Like 2

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe when your boss returns it would be worth a quiet "I noticed something that struck me as odd" conversation out of earshot with anyone else, posed in a sort dismissive "I'm not actually seriously questioning this" tone to see what he says. If nothing else, it would be interesting to know how this came about, and you never know when a little "inside knowledge" might help you with your boss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, it was mentioned the person doing this was someone called Tony Taylor on the MSE forum.  It was spotted due to the price charged and the person who spotted this was right.  Seems he is "well known"

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...