Cowboy builder, a £70k counterclaim,set aside SD and repeated harrassment from DCA

[steampowered]

Imagining sending an SD to wind him up is pleasurable, but our solicitor wouldn't allow that anyway..He said we must behave impeccably as when we go to court, the behavour of the builder will be unfavourable and we must not do anything to appear unreasonable ourselves.

 

When the solicitor sent all the correspondence back and forth with the last DCAicon ,he warned them about game playing any wasting solicitor time, and marked all correspondence "without prejudiceicon SAVE AS TO COSTS", so they were warned.

I thought we could only get costs back had we had to go to the judge to have it set aside?

The DCA agreed to set it aside upon siting the evidence and that was that.

Understood. As the SD was set aside by consent, rather than by the court, there would be no costs.

 

Do note that the SD should usually be served in the name of the creditor rather than the name of the DCA. It seems strange that the first SD was set aside by consent, yet the builder is still serving more SDs.

 

I agree that you shouldn't send an SD in relation to a disputed counterclaim. My point was that if the courts had awarded you costs as part of having the SD set aside, you could send an SD in relation to the costs which have been awarded. This would be quite normal even though the main dispute is ongoing. This isn't an option available to you now, but would be an option if you decided to apply for this latest SD to be set aside by the courts and were awarded costs at that time.

 

Are you saying that because it was set side, even just by the DCA and not a judge, we could still send a bill for the solicitors time through to the builder and demand payment legally?

No, there will be no costs payable if the SD was set aside by consent (unless of course the builder agreed to pay costs, but that seems unlikely).

[dungarees]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me!

 

The solicitor told them early on if he keeps pursuing this and hassling us with debt collectors, instead of the correct remedy which would be for him to take us to court, then we will pursue him for costs when we take him to court down the track, as he is obviously wasting as much of our money as possible just to be a *****.