Flaws in Defence counterclaim Help

[Manxman in exile]

simeon - two things:

 

First, you spotted earleir today that the reference in para 16 to para 16 must have been wrong and that para 16 should be referring to para 15.  I agreed with you at what is now #139 and FTMDave also agreed at #140.  But you haven't corrected it?

 

Second, you seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of para 18.  That para and the three sub-paras (a) to (d) are meant to give a breakdown of the total amount you are claiming - that is £16577.  But you've got all of the £16577 against item 18(b).  If you have understood anything at all that people have been telling you, you would realise that that is not possible.

 

Have you not understood anything?

 

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

 

1 hour ago, simeon1964 said:

"A bit confusing" can you check please

 

(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; Add in here the amount you are claiming for this item and also note which Exhibit supports this amount  (eg  £16,577.12 – Exhibit 2)

(c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; Add in here the amount you are claiming for this item and also note which Exhibit supports this amount  (eg  £8577,12 – Exhibit 3)

(d)  the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above put down as estimated. Add in here the amount you are claiming for this item and also note which Exhibit supports this amount  (eg  £6,000 – Exhibits 4 and 5)

 

16k is total loss, but almost 4k is paid out from me , 18a  and 18b might be looking a lot more than 16k which might confuse the judge  if  add 18c to it??

 

 

Well you've certainly confused me and if you put this before a judge they will just laugh at you!!!!

 

(a) is fine.  We know it is £3000 because you have a receipt for it don't you?

 

(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?

[FTMDave]

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

Edited January 23 by FTMDave
Typo

[simeon1964]

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

[FTMDave]

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

 

[FTMDave]

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.

 

 

[simeon1964]

2 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

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

 

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

[simeon1964]

7 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

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

 

 

unfurfinished is £5190.00

[simeon1964]

1 minute ago, simeon1964 said:

unfurfinished is £5190.00

unfinished £5190.00+3000+387.12+£8000.00

[FTMDave]

8 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

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

Clear as mud.

2 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

unfinished £5190.00+3000+387.12+£8000.00

Clear as mud (2).

Edited January 23 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

6 minutes ago, 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.

[simeon1964]

4 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

Is that right?

 

yes

[simeon1964]

7 minutes ago, 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

[Manxman in exile]

[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 above, the 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......

 

Edited January 23 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

21 minutes ago, 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 January 23 by Manxman in exile

[FTMDave]

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 January 23 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

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 January 23 by FTMDave
Emphasis added

[simeon1964]

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

[Manxman in exile]

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 January 23 by Manxman in exile

[simeon1964]

Well done chaps, I see what I can do tomorrow, looking to tight for me now.

You know what happens afters this, will be going to hearing

[Manxman in exile]

Make sure what you file is based on the correct final version in #165- not one from four days ago...

 

You just need to change the reference I noted in the post above.  (And which you also noted earlier today.)

[FTMDave]

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 January 23 by FTMDave
Typo

[Manxman in exile]

I hope simeon takes note that you've corrected it. 

 

Otherwise... here we go again!

[FTMDave]

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.

 

 

[Manxman in exile]

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.

 

 

[simeon1964]

10 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

Hopefully you have already sent it.

 

Not yet . I am emailing to the court