Complying with CPR 16.5 and CPR 3.4(2) HELP

[Desperate Daniella]

But there is no solicitor involved here. The solicitor no longer represents the builder.

[Desperate Daniella]

The Mould and DB aren't online yet.

 

Hold on for now.

[Old Cogger]

But there is no solicitor involved here. The solicitor no longer represents the builder.

 

Not that SRA are much cop but might be useful to complain of the past events with them, just a thought at the time, I havve two complaints in with them, trouble they will not keep you informed of any investigation on, only if they need more evidence, so another Regualtor (Job for the Boys?),,m the others will be back on soon as you say to wait.

[SuperVillain]

How certain are you that you don't need planning permission? It sounds like you've looked into it so do you have it in writing from a council or something?

[pip1pip2]

How certain are you that you don't need planning permission? It sounds like you've looked into it so do you have it in writing from a council or something?

 

Spoke to them and have run B&B from here previously

[Desperate Daniella]

How was it left with the Court? Is there a date for another Hearing?

[The Mould]

Going to re-read the entire post in order to refresh my mind on the same and so pip will not become stressed as regards being asked to bring me (and others) up to date.

 

Will take a little time pip, so hang on in there, even if you notice that I am off-line.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[DonkeyB]

Going to re-read the entire post in order to refresh my mind on the same and so pip will not become stressed as regards being asked to bring me (and others) up to date.

 

Will take a little time pip, so hang on in there, even if you notice that I am off-line.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

 

Ditto, but my first thoughts are don’t worry about planning – that is a threat, and none of their business.

[SuperVillain]

Having read the whole threat I'd be inclined to agree with the above.

 

I would have loved to be in that Hearing where the builder brought his DCA guy along.

[The Mould]

Ok , the fact is the builder is in fundamentalbreach of the contract. It was agreed that block work walls were tobe built and not timber “stud work” walls tothe extension of the building. The builder has never rectified this fundamentalbreach of this crucial and agreed element of the contract that he expresslyagreed to.

The fact that timber walls were builtinstead of the agreed block work walls has meant that I have had to incur extraexpenses to ensure that soundproofing between adjacent rooms was complete asper the original contract with the builder.

In this regard, thebuilder is most certainly in fundamental breach of his obligations under thecontract and he has in fact repudiated on the same without just cause or legalexcuse.

As to the Debt collection agency instructedby the builder, suchnominated agent is not a party to the contract and therefore, pursuant to Third Parties (Rights of Contracts) Act 1998 and the rule at common law, that being that third parties who are not aparty to the contract in dispute, holdno rights recognised in law to interfere with the same as they are strangers tothe said contract.

In the light of the above, the Debt Collection Agency (state name here) hold nostanding in this matter unless they can establish that they were expresslynamed in the contract at the point of its conclusion as a party who hold rightsto undertake activities such as enforcement of the same.

The Debt Collection Agency (put namehere) is therefore, put to the strictest proof as to theirclaimed standing in this matter, which, for the avoidance of doubt is denied in theabsent of evidence to the contrary.

The builder remains in fundamental breachof the contract interfered into andconcluded with him, unless and until he performs his obligations under thesame, I hereby deny his claim in itsentirety and put him to the strictest of proof in providing evidence to thisCourt to the contrary of the foregoing.

Kind regards

The Mould

[pip1pip2]

Ok , the fact is the builder is in fundamentalbreach of the contract. It was agreed that block work walls were tobe built and not timber “stud work” walls tothe extension of the building. The builder has never rectified this fundamentalbreach of this crucial and agreed element of the contract that he expresslyagreed to.

The fact that timber walls were builtinstead of the agreed block work walls has meant that I have had to incur extraexpenses to ensure that soundproofing between adjacent rooms was complete asper the original contract with the builder.

In this regard, thebuilder is most certainly in fundamental breach of his obligations under thecontract and he has in fact repudiated on the same without just cause or legalexcuse.

As to the Debt collection agency instructedby the builder, suchnominated agent is not a party to the contract and therefore, pursuant to Third Parties (Rights of Contracts) Act 1998 and the rule at common law, that being that third parties who are not aparty to the contract in dispute, holdno rights recognised in law to interfere with the same as they are strangers tothe said contract.

In the light of the above, the Debt Collection Agency (state name here) hold nostanding in this matter unless they can establish that they were expresslynamed in the contract at the point of its conclusion as a party who hold rightsto undertake activities such as enforcement of the same.

The Debt Collection Agency (put namehere) is therefore, put to the strictest proof as to theirclaimed standing in this matter, which, for the avoidance of doubt is denied in theabsent of evidence to the contrary.

The builder remains in fundamental breachof the contract interfered into andconcluded with him, unless and until he performs his obligations under thesame, I hereby deny his claim in itsentirety and put him to the strictest of proof in providing evidence to thisCourt to the contrary of the foregoing.

Kind regards

The Mould

 

We have a court date for the 10/01/14 and I asked to see the Judge last week because the builder would not instruct the sound expert. Now I have to and pay the full cost with report to court by the 10/12/13.

The letter from the Debt Collection Agency states they want a reply by the 26/11/13.

Do I ask to see the Judge again and how do I do this?

Sorry but I do not understand what you have wrote. I am getting really stressed with all this and they just will not stop.

[pip1pip2]

Also when I asked for guarantees and completion certificate the Judge asked if this was a whole contract. The Judge then said the builder has lost the case straight away and if he gives the documents now he losses the case. Can you please clarify.

[SuperVillain]

I think that goes back to your post #93 back in July.

 

In my opinion, that means that if the builder hasn't completed the works as stated in the contract, but then supplies completion certificates he would be in breach of contract because the works are certified as complete and he hasn't carried them out as per the contract.

 

Maybe someone else would like to try and answer your question but that's my thoughts...

[The Mould]

We have a court date for the 10/01/14 and I asked to see the Judge last week because the builder would not instruct the sound expert. Now I have to and pay the full cost with report to court by the 10/12/13.

The letter from the Debt Collection Agency states they want a reply by the 26/11/13.

Do I ask to see the Judge again and how do I do this?

Sorry but I do not understand what you have wrote. I am getting really stressed with all this and they just will not stop.

 

Instruct your sound expert as ordered by the Court and file and serve the same by 10.12.2013.

 

Write a brief letter to DCA, refer them to Contract (rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and state that they are strangers to the contract between you and the builder, therefore, they have no rights recognised in law to interfere and act in this matter, if they say to the contrary, then you require proof that they are expressly named in the contract at the point of its conclusion, It is your understanding that they are not parties to the contract in question but are in fact strangers to the same, therefore, pursuant to established and settled English contract law, this matter is none of their business.

 

The builder was contracted by you to build walls made of blockwork, he failed to honour this obligation and has given only partial performance under the contract you agreed with him. This partial performance is inadequate for the purposes of the contract agreed with the builder, to such extent that you have now had to instruct another builder to undertake work on the partition walls in order to make soundproof, this has costs you extra outlay in monies. The builder is responsible for this, because his failure to honour his obligations under the agreement with you, has caused this extra work and expense.

 

I sincerely hope that the above is clear for you on this matter.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Also when I asked for guarantees and completion certificate the Judge asked if this was a whole contract. The Judge then said the builder has lost the case straight away and if he gives the documents now he losses the case. Can you please clarify.

 

The builder has l,ost his case and the Court is Clearly going to rule in your favour.

 

Yipeee!

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Desperate Daniella]

Which explains the attempt at blackmail.

[pip1pip2]

The builder has l,ost his case and the Court is Clearly going to rule in your favour.

 

Yipeee!

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Do I have a whole contract?

[The Mould]

Do I have a whole contract?

 

 

The contract which you agreed with builder has not been honoured by the builder. Theefore, you owe the builder nothing and he owes you for all and any expenses incurred by you to rectify the works that builder agreed to but failed to complete in accordance with the contract.

 

You have won your case.

 

Simply needs a qualified judgement handed down thereon which orders the builder to pay you £xzy pounds.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[pip1pip2]

Well today I got lots of letters from court.

1 New court date for hearing 28th January 2014

2 The Claimant has made an application to the court to have my defence and counter-claim stuck out as I do not have planning permission for B&B. The planning permission granted is for my elderly parents, one wheel chair bound to use the extension. Both have now died.

3 Date for this hearing 15th January 2014 at 2.55pm, so will have to arrange for child care again.

4 Letter from Judge Debt Collection Agency not allowed to act at court or file papers but can still contact me.

This is never ending.

What do I do now?

[Desperate Daniella]

I'm sure The Mould and the others will help you on the legal situation, but I thought you said you didn't need planning permission anyway. If it's a family home with just one or two bedrooms being used for B&B most LAs are okay with this.

 

The Debt Agency may be allowed to contact you but that doesn't mean they can harass you and any harassment can be reported to the judge. I personally don't know why he has allowed that.

[pip1pip2]

I'm sure The Mould and the others will help you on the legal situation, but I thought you said you didn't need planning permission anyway. If it's a family home with just one or two bedrooms being used for B&B most LAs are okay with this.

 

The Debt Agency may be allowed to contact you but that doesn't mean they can harass you and any harassment can be reported to the judge. I personally don't know why he has allowed that.

 

Yes,one can let 6 beds/ 3 rooms/ 50% or less, we have a 7 bedroomed home now with the extension. They are quoting the planning decision, which states the extension can never be a separate building (become a semi). So really think this is just a total waste of time.

[Desperate Daniella]

They will clearly try everything! What awful people.

[DonkeyB]

Planning permission is irrelevant – that’s between you and the council, IF it is actually required.

 

The case is about the provision (or not) of a service.

 

You need to oppose the application.

[The Mould]

Yes,one can let 6 beds/ 3 rooms/ 50% or less, we have a 7 bedroomed home now with the extension. They are quoting the planning decision, which states the extension can never be a separate building (become a semi). So really think this is just a total waste of time.

 

 

 

 

Please peruse all previous posts made by me on this matter.

 

 

You have nothing to fear, as stated by Donkey, any PP is between you and the local authority.

 

 

The fact, as I see it, remains, that is that the builder is in fundamental breach of his obligations under the contract, therefore, you owe him nothing and you cannot be held legally responsible for his claim against you under the same, which the builder is clearly relying upon.

 

 

Any agreement/contract agreed between you and local authority as regards these home improvements, is between you and local authority, the builder is not privy to such as he is a stranger to the same, therefore, the builder has no standing in Court to argue any matters under a contract concluded between you and local authority that he is not a party to and is in fact a stranger to the same, the contract entered into by you and the local authority, remains as concluded between you and the local authority. Strangers cannot interfere with the same.

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

The Mould

[pip1pip2]

Please peruse all previous posts made by me on this matter.

 

 

You have nothing to fear, as stated by Donkey, any PP is between you and the local authority.

 

 

The fact, as I see it, remains, that is that the builder is in fundamental breach of his obligations under the contract, therefore, you owe him nothing and you cannot be held legally responsible for his claim against you under the same, which the builder is clearly relying upon.

 

 

Any agreement/contract agreed between you and local authority as regards these home improvements, is between you and local authority, the builder is not privy to such as he is a stranger to the same, therefore, the builder has no standing in Court to argue any matters under a contract concluded between you and local authority that he is not a party to and is in fact a stranger to the same, the contract entered into by you and the local authority, remains as concluded between you and the local authority. Strangers cannot interfere with the same.

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

The Mould

 

Thank you

 

In the application to court he has stated part of our Counter-claim is fraudulent (£5,000 for loss of earnings from letting the room). This is because he believes we need PP to do B&B in our own home. So he is asking the court to strike out our defence and counter-claim.

We have a court date for this special hearing on the 15/01/14, but the court hearing fee has to be paid by the Claimant by 4pm 14/01/14.