Flaws in Defence counterclaim Help

[FTMDave]

What a total disaster.

 

The court order says the Parties (plural) have to prepare this document.  You can't just decide for the builder's solicitor. 

 

On Saturday I sent you the Wikipedia link which stated -

 

the claimant would be expected to set out each complaint separately and in the next column to identify what it will cost to put the item right. Further columns allow the respondent to reply on each item.

 

You could have prepared this document on Saturday and then e-mailed the builder's solicitor ... but oh well.  Usual mess up.

 

How on earth I know more about a Scotts Schedule which I hadn't even heard of until Saturday unlike you who have had since August to gen up ... is beyond me.

 

Good luck for tomorrow - you'll need it.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Good luck Simeon, please let us know how it goes today.

 

HB

[Manxman in exile]

I was expecting worse actually...

 

At least it adds up to the amount simeon is claiming (£16577.12) plus at least it gives an indication of where the differences are between simeon's claim and the defence/expert witness report - even if it might not be quite in the form the court wants

 

It might have helped if there'd been an additional column for reference giving the exhibit numbers of the estimates and quotes simeon was relying on to justify the amount of claim for each item.  That would have helped the court see where the differences arise - maybe.  But it could have been worse...

 

I'm still very concerned looking at this that there is an element of betterment in the claim and that the builder might be right when he argues that certain heads of claim were not included in the original contract - but of course we can't be sure because I don't think simeon has shown us the actual contract agreed to by the builder.

 

Also things like item 15 where simeon claims for damage to "all fire doors" but the expert report says there are no fire doors.  What's happening there?  How can one party claim damage to something that an independent expert says doesn't exist?

 

Also I see no evidence that simeon has done what he was told to do.  Go back to the people who supplied quotes and estimates and ask them why their figures (and therefore his claim) differ so much from the expert's report.  Or go back to his structural engineer and ask his view.

 

And on the underpinning/piling issue, I'm wondering whether simeon should be addressing his complaint to his structural engineer rather than the builder.  The builder acts on the engineer's report and gives simeon a quote for underpinning which is what the engineer has specified.  Is it the builder's fault if the job required piling and not underpinning?

 

Where I do agree with simeon (although he's not made anything of it in this schedule) is that where the expert has agreed that some remedial work is required, the expert has provided unrealistically low cost estimates to get the work done.  I wish I could get tradesmen to work at the rates suggested by the expert's estimated costs.

 

Anyway - I can't see the outcome of this case resting on this schedule alone.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Yes, you're right.  At least the matters in dispute are listed and the other party can say if they agree or not to the words that Simeon has attributed to them.

 

It's just annoying that something is done wrong, when with a tiny bit of care & attention it could have been done right.

[honeybee13]

How did you get on today, @simeon1964?

 

HB

[dx100uk]

[honeybee13]

I have to say that I'm disappointed @simeon1964hasn't let us know what happened yesterday after all the work people have put in for him.

 

FTMD found time between work commitments and was even here late on Tuesday evening to help tweak documents and MiE managed to post from his sickbed. BazzaS has also offered help throughout the thread and I think they all deserve better than this.

 

HB

[Manxman in exile]

Ha!  It was nothing serious and I wasn't in my sickbed!  It's just that I hadn't really visited the forum for a couple of weeks and I was surprised to discover on Monday(?) that simeon had posted over the weekend after nothing for 7 weeks, and that the hearing was set for Wednesday.

 

As I said yesterday, his schedule could have been worse and I think he's probably made the best of a bad case.

 

I think his difficulty was always going to be justifying a claim for £17k arising out of a contrcat worth, what, about £6k?  But despite being pressed by several posters as to whether the level of claim was justified, he insisted that he could produce quotes and estimates backing up the figure.

 

The expert witness report didn't help in this respect.

[BazzaS]

On 02/03/2023 at 09:56, honeybee13 said:

I have to say that I'm disappointed @simeon1964hasn't let us know what happened yesterday after all the work people have put in for him.

 

………..

 

I think they all deserve better than this.

 

HB

I don’t disagree. However, from their previous postings / behaviour: I can’t say I’m surprised (sadly).

[FTMDave]

I agree with you all.

In fact that's why there are around 40 pages/1000 posts over the original thread and this continuation.  Sometimes Simeon jumps up and works in collaboration with us (e.g. the counterclaim PoCs) and other times disappears and prepares documentation elsewhere, presumably with his friend (e.g. his WS) so we haven't a clue what is going on.  We only found out about the hearing four days before and then only in passing.

In particular MiE has tried constantly to point out possible flaws in the case which the other side would pick up on, and his questions have been repeatedly ignored.

Things would have gone so much better all round with just basic attention to detail.

[simeon1964]

Judgement.

Scan2023-03-08_131450 JudgemtMarch23-1.pdf

Edited March 9, 2023 by FTMDave
Personal details showing

[BazzaS]

Are you the litigant in person and you have to pay £7648.19?

 

Or were you represented by counsel (which you didn't mention up until now!) and are owed £7648.19?

 

if you are owed £7648 - you didn't tell us you had a barrister!

If you owe £7648, how come the other side still had a claim? you told us it was struck out .......  as ever, you aren't making things clear.

[FTMDave]

The way I read it is that Simoen has been ordered to pay the £7648 - but you're right Bazza, it's unclear.

 

How about briefly telling us what happened in court, Simeon?

[simeon1964]

From previous claim the claimant brought wrong claim of £2866.66 and I pointed out in my Ws that it was wrong and his Barrister agreed that it was £2531.00 if he was to complete the work. .

The amount was set against the Expert report of £1,300.00 the remainder , then claimants cost at £6,356.00

[FTMDave]

But we have all thought for about a year that the builder's claim was struck out, and he failed to get it reinstated at set aside stage.

[simeon1964]

Yes for one reason she was taking the claim into consideration and when ask about the cost against him for striking out his claim. She said It has nothing to do with this. When asked damages leading to this hearing for unfinished work. Didn't get clear answer. Was a total confused day as I did not know the hearing was even taking place.

 

Big thank you to you lot.  Totally confused on the day. Got to worry about cost of 7K+

[FTMDave]

Thank you for your kind words.

 

7 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

Totally confused on the day.

And this really has been the problem all along - confusion.

 

I have to go to work now but will write this evening.

[BazzaS]

2 (expensive) mistakes then!.

a) not telling us the strike out was no longer in effect, making you potentially liable for costs, together with

b) claiming for more than 10k (and you never really made it clear why anyone other than you thought you were owed more thna 10k!), leading to the claim being in the fast-track, not the small claims track where you wouldn't have been hammered for costs, costs beign strictly limited in the small claims track.

 

As for "Was a total confused day as I did not know the hearing was even taking place" : how come you told us in advance the hearing was taking place and you are now saying you didn't know it was taking place. The two seem mutually exclusive!

[simeon1964]

2 hours ago, BazzaS said:

he two seem mutually exclusive!

I knew the hearing was taking place but the claimant's solicitor said because the expert report was late there would not be enough time to get the  statement and bundle ready and might have to ask the court for extension due to late Expert report. I had no information since then. I just decided to find out from the court to know that hearing will hold.

[BazzaS]

So, you knew the hearing was taking place.

you just also knew that there was the chance it might get postponed.

 

There is a world of difference between that and “I did not know the hearing was even taking place.“

 

There is a world of difference between “claimant’s claim was struck out” and not.

 

There was a world of difference between claiming 17k odd and being granted £1300 (& people were asking you to justify the value of your claim from the outset!).

 

So, now you owe £7k odd.

if you don’t pay it (or find some reason why you don’t have to pay, and you should be VERY wary of further court action, if you would deal with it in the same manner we’ve seen so far!) it’ll go onto the register as a CCJ.

 

Expensive lessons, and I don’t think you can blame CAG when the blame lies with you repeatedly not being able to tell apart things where there is a “world of difference”.

[honeybee13]

Simeon, your real name seems to be showing on the letter from the court, I've hidden the post.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

I was going to comment on the huge mistakes made, not to criticise, but to draw lessons - but see that Bazza has beaten me to it.

 

When Simeon filed the counterclaim way back in early 2021 I hope he looked up the difference between small claims track/under £10,000 and fast track/over £10,000 and/or his legal friend advised him.  It was a huge risk going for £17,000.  The forum would have advised to go for £9,000 for part of the damage, and then if successful sue for the rest of the damage.  But the forum wasn't involved until September 2021.

 

This is the horrendous part of the "bill" - £6356 - and so easily avoidable.

 

So what will happen now is that Simeon needs to pay £7648 by 22 March.  The builder seems to have got himself a decent solicitor who got a good result for his client, annoying as that may be, and if the £7648 isn't paid on time methinks a few days later Simeon will get high court bailiffs banging on his door.

 

 

[BazzaS]

What an interesting life Simeon leads.

Looking at their posting history, their history of litigation seems not to be a happy one, beset with woes caused by incompetent legal advice :  barrister (personal injury claim) and solicitor (builder claim) (so, for 2 separate cases), and multiple losses in court, the judgment order (hidden now, as it showed their name), adressing them as "Mr.".

 

At https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/365449-decree-nisi/#comment-4384623 in July 2014 Simeon noted "My husband was the petitioner in our divorce case. The decree nisi was issued over 2years ago", yet at

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/433555-legal-clarification/#comment-5103749  in April 2021 Simeon noted "My wife has been talking about divorcing me for many years. Our marriage is 27years old."

 

So, you were married to your wife  from 1994 to (at least 2021, 27 years minimum), and married to your husband from 2012 or earlier, to at least 2014. How so?, (since these dates overlap): did they undergo gender reassignment and are they one and the same  person?.

 

I could understand someone making a mistake in a post, but mistaking a wife for a husband, or vice versa, seems unusual.

Edited March 9, 2023 by BazzaS

[simeon1964]

2 hours ago, BazzaS said:

What an interesting life Simeon leads.

How relevant are the previous post to this  Bazzas?

[honeybee13]

Posts or threads/topics, Simeon?

 

HB