Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Flaws in Defence counterclaim Help


simeon1964
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 431 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

So now £3000.00 + £16,577.12 + £8577.12 = £16,577.12, does it?

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

7 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

(b) CANNOT be the total amount of your claim because it only includes that work left undone by your builder in projects 1 and 2, and does not include anything from (c) and (d).  AND OBVIOUSLY it doesn't include the cost of the piling because you've already included it at (a)

 

(c) is only the cost of putting right the damage caused by the builder.  It does not include work which the builder was paid for but didn't do.

 

(d) is the value of property you own that you claim the builder stole.  The first time you mentioned it you said it was something separate from everything else so I put it in separately.  Are you now saying it is already included in either (b) or (c)?  If you are now saying that, why didn't you point it out earlier?

 

 

(b) breakdown is £8000.00 indicating Leigh Handyman--- --- (do i have to break this down as its already on the quote)

(c) breakdown £8577.12 indicated by the       Cheshire builders----(do i have to break this down as its already on the quote)

(d) Dont have proof of estimate and price was marked TBA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still £3000.00 + £8000 + £8577.12 = £19,577.12, not £16577.12.

 

 

There are now 16 pages so around 400 posts about something which should have been pretty straightforward.  I reckon around three quarters of those posts could have been avoided by using simple common sense.

 

Make £3000 for the piling plus (1) a figure for the work the builder didn't do plus (2) the work for the repairs, equal £16577.12 please, and do immediately or you're on your own.

 

£3000 piling + HOW MUCH £ unfinished work + HOW MUCH £ repair work needed = £16577.12.

 

 

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

On 23/01/2022 at 21:27, FTMDave said:

Still £3000.00 + £8000 + £8577.12 = £19,577.12, not £16577.12.

 

 Well, its £3000+£387.12 for rubble truck + £8000.00

 

On 23/01/2022 at 21:33, FTMDave said:

£3000 piling + HOW MUCH £ unfinished work + HOW MUCH £ repair work needed = £16577.12.

 

 

unfurfinished is £5190.00

 

On 23/01/2022 at 21:40, simeon1964 said:

unfurfinished is £5190.00

unfinished £5190.00+3000+387.12+£8000.00

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/01/2022 at 21:37, simeon1964 said:

 Well, its £3000+£387.12 for rubble truck + £8000.00

Clear as mud.

On 23/01/2022 at 21:43, simeon1964 said:

unfinished £5190.00+3000+387.12+£8000.00

Clear as mud (2).

 

On 23/01/2022 at 21:40, simeon1964 said:

unfurfinished is £5190.00

£3000 piling + £5190 unfinished + £8387.12 repairs = £16577.12.  Is that right?

 

I hope so and I'll edit the document now to bring everything to a close.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

On 23/01/2022 at 21:46, FTMDave said:

Is that right?

 

yes

 

On 23/01/2022 at 21:46, FTMDave said:

£3000 piling + £5190 unfinished + £8387.12 repairs = £16577.12.  Is that right?

 

This is £3000 piling+£5190 unfinished+£387.12+ £8000.00  Correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Edit - I see I've cross-posted so hopefully this post of mine is NOT required and can be ignored.  Unless FTMDave thinks it might help]

 

 

Christ.

 

Looking back I see that I introduced paras 16 - 18 back in #95 (I think?) four days ago.  The purpose of those paragraphs was to give some basis to, and explanation of, the figure of £16577 that simeon was claiming, because all he had at that stage was "I'm claiming £16577" but no explanation why.

 

Because simeon has the intensely annoying habit of repeatedly posting things (like receipts, estimates and reports) with no explanation of why he was posting them or what they are, I've looked at them all and tried to break them down into 18(a) - (d) to make sense of them.  Despite my asking him on several occasions whether any of the posts he kept on making included any duplication of estimated costs, it would now appear that some of the figures are in fact duplicated.  Hence the sum of 18 (a) - (d) exceeds the total amount claimed...  😲 😬 ☹️

 

Why simeon could not have pointed out that he did not understand the purpose of para 18 (a) - (d) before now (I posted it four days ago) I simply cannot understand, but having looked back over this thread, I'm not certain that simeon has actually understood anything at all that we've been trying to tell him.

 

And that can't just be down to having poor English I'm afraid...

 

=============================================================================================================

 

I'm wondering if Simeon should drop the breakdown of para 18 into four sub-paragraphs and simply say something like this:

 

 

"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 the costs listed at [simeon - you then add the Exhibit or exhibits where the lists of costs and/or estimates  totalling £16577 can be found, and then delete (a) - (d) as suggested below[

 

(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 is  £3,000 – Exhibit 1

(b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above, £16,577.12 – Exhibit 5

(c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above;  £8577,12 – Exhibit 6

(d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated.  TBA 4 and 5

 

19. In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 abovethe defendant/Part 20 counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from the 26 October 2020 which was the last day of his employee left the property"   

 

 

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.’.

 

The above is just an idea to get round the fact we can't get (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) to add up to £16577.

 

It's just an idea at this stage......

 

 

On 23/01/2022 at 21:46, FTMDave said:

£3000 piling + £5190 unfinished + £8387.12 repairs = £16577.12.  Is that right?

 

I hope so and I'll edit the document now to bring everything to a close.

 

So do you have psychic powers or are you merely Britain's foremost forensic accounting expert?  Or maybe you're a dentist...

 

Either way, I'm impressed by anyone who has made any sense of what simeon has posted today.  (And yesterday... and the day before... and the day before that...)

Edited by Manxman in exile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We might, finally, be there -

 

Particulars of 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 £3000 (see receipt, Exhibit 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 continuing 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 suspected either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When the Claimant challenged the Defendant he 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 (Exhibit 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 15 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed in 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, £3,000.00, Exhibit 1;

(b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in paras 15 & 16 above, £5,190.00, Exhibits 2 & 3 & 4;

(c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above, £8387.12, Exhibit 5;

(d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.  This has not yet been costed.

 

19.   In addition to the amount in paragraph 18 above, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant also claims 8% interest under the County Courts Act 1984 from 26 October 2020 which was the last day the builder or one of his colleagues worked at the property  

 

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.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

The figures now match, so as far as I'm concerned that's that.

 

If there is duplication then that's the OP's look out, there has been nearly a year to make simple lists of costs.

 

I think "the three of us" should have a last read through.

 

It's up to Simeon to make sure the references to the exhibits are accurate, they certainly weren't accurate in the version I've just edited, in fact they were contradictory, but that's up to him.

 

If the "three of us" don't see any obvious errors then the document is good to go tomorrow morning (not as the last minute).

Edited by FTMDave
Emphasis added
  • Like 1

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

2 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

3000 piling + £5190 unfinished + £8387.12 repairs = £16577.12.  Is that right?

 

No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it adds up which is an Apollo 11 achievement!

 

Does simeon need reminding again that it is HIS responsibilty to make sure that all the Exhibits are correctly labelled, ordered and numbered etc, and that they are all correctly cross-referenced in the particulars?  Because we can't check that remotely.

 

The only remaining thing (which I think would be helpful to have added but is not a necessity) is a list or schedule of exhibits.  It just helps to introduce the exhibits.  But simeon will have to produce that himself - so it may be advisable not to bother...

 

But I don't want to rock the boat any further and am happy with #165 - unless there are any glaring errors I've not noticed.

 

[EDIT:  cross posted with 166 and 167.  I will check 165 over as well]

 

44 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

 

No this is (£387.12 for Rubble) not (£8387.12 ) Repairs is £8000.00 and £5190.00 for unfinished work

 

Sigh.

 

@simeon1964 and @FTMDave

 

That final version seems OK to me.

 

The ONLY thing I can see that needs changing is the reference to para 16 in para 16.  That should be a reference to para 15, not 16

 

Phew!

Edited by Manxman in exile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

The ONLY thing I can see that needs changing is the reference to para 16 in para 16.  That should be a reference to para 15, not 16

Typo sorted.  Thanks MiE.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

Remember you need to e-mail both the court and the builder's solicitor with the Particulars of Counterclaim today.

 

Make sure you request a receipt for both.

 

Please confirm when you've done that.

 

 

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

Good points from FTMDave.

 

simeon - if you haven't already sent it off, I'd suggest that you need to be doing it ASAP.  You never know what unforeseen obstacles you may encounter at the last minute.  (eg your internet connection going down... )

 

Hopefully you have already sent it.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

The court order didnt say I should but says they should respond to counterclaim by 24Feb

 

Yes it does ..." The Court and the Claimant "

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

Can i just put I am claiming 16k being cost to repairs of damaged and unfinished work to mu property 

Time for you re read the order see point 3 again...in particular the words " a fully pleaded counterclaim "

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/01/2022 at 11:51, simeon1964 said:

The court order didnt say I should but says they should respond to counterclaim by 24Feb

 

Sigh!

 

Yes it does!  I told you the other day to read again the court order that YOU posted in #46.  It clearly says in para 3 that you must send particulars to both the court and the (original) claimant.  ie the builder

 

On 24/01/2022 at 11:58, simeon1964 said:

Can i just put I am claiming 16k being cost to repairs of damaged and unfinished work to mu property 

 

Exasperated sigh!!!

 

simeon - go back to #165 and read para 18(a) to (d) of your particulars again!  It's a breakdown of what you are claiming!  That's the whole point of para 18!

 

You aren't suggesting ignoring #165 and just putting in particulars saying "I claim £16k for cost of repairs to my damage and unfinished work" are you?

 

FTMDave and I have sweated blood over the last week to produce #165 for you to submit today... 

 

Wish I'd read this before getting involved in this thread...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a full day of work and can't be pestered with this constant inability to follow simple instructions that even a child at primary school would have no problem with.  So here it is in a single post.

 

1.  E-mail the court.

2.  Copy to the builder's solicitor.

3.  In the subject field put "Claim no.XXXXX, Claimant (XXXXX builder's name), Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant (XXXXX your name).

4.  Write "Good afternoon, in accordance with the court's order of 10 January I attach my detailed Particulars of Counterclaim.  Yours, XXXXX".

5.  Attach the document.

6.  Click the "request receipt" bit.

 

Or do something completely different and lose your 16 and a half grand.  Up to you.

 

 

  • Sad 1

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 431 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...