Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm troubled that you haven't started to discuss quantum yet – at least with your solicitor. Liability is slamdunk so the only question that large is that of quantum. Also, I don't really understand why it is you who are trying to save costs by getting government agencies involved which don't necessarily move very quickly – when the liability is entirely United Utilities and it is they who ultimately will bear the cost of everything. Have you invited them to get involved with clearance? Have you had a full survey of the site by an independent surveyor and if so have United Utilities been given an opportunity to have a look, to comment on your survey and carry out their own independent survey for comparison or corroboration? I have to say that what you seem to be saying about United Utilities bearing asbestos on your land seems to be so scandalous that one of the things I would do is I will try to expose it and I will contact your local member of Parliament. Write to them and then attend the surgery and explain what has happened and explain that a utilities company has been polluting land within their constituency and you need help to deal with it. I can imagine that this is the kind of thing that a member of Parliament would seize upon because it's an easy kill, totally uncontroversial – and extremely popular. Have you spoken to the local newspapers? They love that kind of story. Where are you in the country?
    • Chris Whitty on Twitter earlier.   'COVID-19 cases are rising and winter is drawing closer.   1) If you have not been vaccinated, now is the time. 2) If you are offered a booster please take up the offer. 3) Ventilation, masks in crowded indoor spaces and hand washing remain important.'   What about schools, offices, etc, amongst others?
    • Thank you for your quick reply.   There has been no discussion regarding quantum at all, although discussions have been very limited, we appear to be awaiting the actions of Env Health as this helps a long way in saving costs.   If we were to proceed now we would be looking to prove the land contaminated and employing specialists, etc, so the Solicitor has advised its best to use Env Health to do this and save some costs which allows more for the litigation should it be needed.   We have no idea with regard to a value for this and will look to the Solicitor for advice.   Our actual costs will I think be possibly round about the £5k mark   I think based on your reply the way forward is to discuss all these elements fully with the Solicitor   Your comments have been extremely helpful and have cleared up alot of questions I had. 
    • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined Credit Suisse £147,190,276 for ‘serious financial crime due diligence failings’View the full article
    • Thank you for this. It's very helpful. You say that they have omitted their breach of duty of care. In other words they have admitted to negligence. The rest of your questions relate to quantum. Once you have established that they owed you a duty and that they have breached their duty then the only question is whether the losses they have caused you are easily foreseeable. Because they've admitted their breach of duty – and clearly it must be a duty which was owed to you, then the only question is how much are they going to pay you. The courts are not in the business of awarding more than your losses so you have to establish the extent of your losses headed variously under actual losses – ascertainable losses such as expenditure, loss of income and so forth. In all these are known as special damages – not because the special but because they are specific – you can specify them. After that it becomes more nebulous and you have to start calculating your General damages and that really is where the arguments will lie. Loss of value, loss of chance, loss of reasonable expectations and so forth. As you are already using a solicitor your solicitor will have much better access to resources for the calculation of quantum – but at the end of the day as they have already admitted negligence, it will come down to negotiation/haggle where you start it your highest and they start the lowest and you meet somewhere in between. Of course what can bring it to ahead is if you start to become very aggressive and rapid in your actions. These people are used to doing things very slowly and also they are used to stringing you along. Because they are dealing with your solicitor, that fits very much into that sort of culture because that's what your solicitor expects. On the other hand, there would be nothing to stop you leaping into action, sending them your demands for compensation – and then when they start to balk, you issue your letter of claim and then issue court proceedings. This would be unexpectedly assertive on your part and would put them on the back foot and false them to focus on the issue. Your solicitor will probably not want to go along with this approach. If you came at them with a demand for compensation, then you would have to have your figures very carefully worked out and justifiable. It must look like a money grab and if it went to court, the court would be very careful about examining your claim and making sure that you won't getting a penny more than the total of your losses. The purposes of damage in tort are to return you the position that you would have been in had the breach of duty not occurred. In other words to take you back to zero. Have you got any figure in mind for reasonable compensation? Another problem is that if the figure you want is more than £10,000, then if you sue for that figure you will find that your case is allocated to the Fast Track. The small claims track is where one sees for less than £10,000 and even if one loses, one does not pay the costs of the other side – the winner. On the fast track, if you lose the case then you will pay a fairly large contribution towards the cost of the winner. This can be very offputting and also well resourced defendants often exploit this when they know they are dealing with a litigant in person and they dragged the legal procedure out so that costs are racked up and the risk factor for the litigant in person claimant becomes even more serious so that the litigant in person realises that if they do lose the case, the cost that they will have to pay to the winner will cause them serious financial problems. What has your solicitor said about quantum? As you have engaged a solicitor then that really is the best person to be handling this although as I said, it will probably be drawn out – unless you get a Caravaggio or Christopher Marlowe -type who is prepared to go for low blows.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Aktive Kapital again....


Switch
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5318 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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...