Acknowledge of Service without a Particulars of Claim - CCMCC

[Ssssssssss]

Just to let you know that all documents are now with the expert. We will see what he comes back with.
The other side haven't filled out their remedial column properly and just written lots of text again about how wrong our numbers must be. They have also written to the expert to say that our information is "exaggerated at best". I am assuming i should just not respond to those things, not report lack of compliance to the court and also just let the expert get on with it however he wants to now ?

[Ssssssssss]

Hi Jaguarsuk,

So there have been no complaints about our schedule at all to date which is good.Â*Â*

We did receive an email from the other side today (thurs) though at 4.45 ish.Â* Their deadline is Monday 2nd dec.

The message saysÂ*

" We have received our clients comments in respect of your schedule and would propose to circulate those ahead of time on the 2nd dec as per court deadline. In order to expedite matters it does appear prudent that the word document is provided to this practice and we can make our amendments upon that word document to save the duplication of time and cost in retyping that document out particularly as a word and pdf document is to be sent to the expert in any event. We would ask therefore that you do send the word document version of your schedule over to use as soon as poss to allow our clients comments and responses to be entered onto that document. "

When they talk about document, they are talking about our schedule of issues.Â* However, they have their own reply to our schedule in their own word document they created before.

It would be far harder and take far longer for us to review their amendments if they amend our word document and also it would leave their previous schedule of reply document in a weird position if it didn't contain their remedial cost.

We believe this may be yet another delay tactic to cause more work and delay the expert getting on with things and to send it only a day or so before their deadline.

We were going to go back with the following - I'm conscious that whatever i say, they pick at so just wanted to run it by you as to whether i should :-Â*Â*

"Thank you for your letter dated Thursday 28th November received 4:39pm in relation to your deadline of Monday 2nd December.Â*

Regarding the court order item 2, It is not necessary for you to re-type, duplicate or amend our document.

You have your own schedule of response.

We look forward to receiving the information required by the court as outlined in item 2 of the 4th November Court Order.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us
"

[Ssssssssss]

OK, we have submitted our schedule. I took the extra column out for notes so there is now only 1 remedial cost column added. As you said, tried to keep it simple and brief.

I put a number in each cell and where there was the same remedy for a issue i merged the remedial cost cells into one (as you suggested earlier Jaguarsuk) while leaving the layout of the table the same. Then i put the cost into the merged cells in the remedial cost column.

Where it was not possible to merge due to the layout of the table, i put a zero and briefly noted that the remedial cost was the same as item x and therefore not repeated.

The only thing the other side will probably complain about is the merging. But will have to see what they say and come up with. I'm sure they will find something they don't like.

[Ssssssssss]

We have broken out the shower tray and sink and cistern issues as the builder has broken those out very well.

The tiling though can't be broken down to individual pieces because for example - Not buying the right tiles means the remedy is a full re-tile of the bathroom. Not waterproofing the bathroom before tiling, the remedy again is a full re-tile. Not laying out the tiles correctly and causing grouting issues again means a full re-tile. Can i do what we said before which is just merged the remedial cost of those rows into one cost and state that the remedy for each is the same ?

This is what i did so far. I can take out the notes column - Not a problem. It's really just the tiling section that looks odd because so many items are all merged together and it goes over a few pages. Everything else has a number next to it. I could always write how i have in item 1.1 under each of the tiling items 3.1 onwards ?

The first 3 columns before the black bar are the old table column exactly as they were in the original document. It's the final 2 columns that are the new ones.

[Ssssssssss]

You're going to have to stick to what the order says, by adding an explanation column you're just further complicating things.

You are going to have to find someone to break down the individual tasks and their costs with labour to remedy them.

You have to comply with the order or else you'll find your defence and counter claim struck out.

Hopefully you have engaged a surveyor or other professional who works to a fixed fee and as a result will not be bothered about the work involved in doing so as your deadline is 7 days away.

We have broken out the shower tray and sink and cistern issues as the builder has broken those out very well.

The tiling though can't be broken down to individual pieces because for example - Not buying the right tiles means the remedy is a full re-tile of the bathroom. Not waterproofing the bathroom before tiling, the remedy again is a full re-tile. Not laying out the tiles correctly and causing grouting issues again means a full re-tile. Can i do what we said before which is just merged the remedial cost of those rows into one cost and state that the remedy for each is the same ?

[jaguarsuk]

You're going to have to stick to what the order says, by adding an explanation column you're just further complicating things.

You are going to have to find someone to break down the individual tasks and their costs with labour to remedy them.

You have to comply with the order or else you'll find your defence and counter claim struck out.

Hopefully you have engaged a surveyor or other professional who works to a fixed fee and as a result will not be bothered about the work involved in doing so as your deadline is 7 days away.

[Ssssssssss]

Hi Jaguarsuk.

So in the hearing, as we already discussed, the judge asked us to just add an extra column to the schedule etc. But obviously we discussed this with you and decided it wasn't possible in the format the document was in before.

The order has now come through though and says as follows :-

1. Unless the defendants comply with paragraph 1 of the order made 12th june 2019, by adding a column to the defendants schedule of complaint which contains the remedial cost and sending it to the court and the claimant by 4pm on 18th nov, the defence and counterclaim shall be struck out and the claimant entitled to request judgement on his claim.

2. The claimant shall by 4pm on 2nd dec referred to the remedial cost column only and send his reply to the defendants and the court.

3. the parties shall each send a copy at the additional column and replies and a copy of this order to the surface joiner expert.

4. the surface joiner expert shall then complete his report and file it at court and serve the parties by 4pm on 20th dec.

5. the file must then be referred to a deputy or district judge for directives as the whether statements, document and trial together.

6. costs of the claimant app 2nd sept referred to trial judge.

So i am concerned. The judge has been rather specific about what he said about just adding an extra column. But we already established that we couldn't really do that easily in the format it is currently in. Am i still complying with the order by doing what we said i should do which is re-arrange the layout of the table and combining rows ? Or should i do the above to the letter and maybe also do the revised layout version too ?

btw - all the spelling issues in that order were written that way in the order. Bit weird. It seems like they have typed out the notes maybe. Bit strange. surface joiner expert for example !

[Ssssssssss]

Hi Jaguarsuk.

So in the hearing, as we already discussed, the judge asked us to just add an extra column to the schedule etc. But obviously we discussed this with you and decided it wasn't possible in the format the document was in before.

The order has now come through though and says as follows :-

1. Unless the defendants comply with paragraph 1 of the order made 12th june 2019, by adding a column to the defendants schedule of complaint which contains the remedial cost and sending it to the court and the claimant by 4pm on 18th nov, the defence and counterclaim shall be struck out and the claimant entitled to request judgement on his claim.

2. The claimant shall by 4pm on 2nd dec referred to the remedial cost column only and send his reply to the defendants and the court.

3. the parties shall each send a copy at the additional column and replies and a copy of this order to the surface joiner expert.

4. the surface joiner expert shall then complete his report and file it at court and serve the parties by 4pm on 20th dec.

5. the file must then be referred to a deputy or district judge for directives as the whether statements, document and trial together.

6. costs of the claimant app 2nd sept referred to trial judge.

So i am concerned. The judge has been rather specific about what he said about just adding an extra column. But we already established that we couldn't really do that easily in the format it is currently in. Am i still complying with the order by doing what we said i should do which is re-arrange the layout of the table and combining rows ? Or should i do the above to the letter and maybe also do the revised layout version too ?

Just a thought but rather than physically changing the layout of the original table by moving rows around, would it cause less confusion if i instead add 2 extra columns (one for remedial notes and one for remedial cost ) - like the screenshot attached.

This would mean the table looks structurally exactly the same as the original and the new notes column can be used to explain where something has been merged with something else e.g. 1.1 merging with item 3 in relation to tiling.

The judge might then have less complaint about our compliance with his order to just add another column.

Maybe this way might satisfy the court order and also cause less confusion or complaint from the other side about changed layouts ?

[Ssssssssss]

You need to find out how the builder calculated the labour element, then split the labour costs between the two.

Hi Jaguarsuk.

So in the hearing, as we already discussed, the judge asked us to just add an extra column to the schedule etc. But obviously we discussed this with you and decided it wasn't possible in the format the document was in before.

The order has now come through though and says as follows :-

1. Unless the defendants comply with paragraph 1 of the order made 12th june 2019, by adding a column to the defendants schedule of complaint which contains the remedial cost and sending it to the court and the claimant by 4pm on 18th nov, the defence and counterclaim shall be struck out and the claimant entitled to request judgement on his claim.

2. The claimant shall by 4pm on 2nd dec referred to the remedial cost column only and send his reply to the defendants and the court.

3. the parties shall each send a copy at the additional column and replies and a copy of this order to the surface joiner expert.

4. the surface joiner expert shall then complete his report and file it at court and serve the parties by 4pm on 20th dec.

5. the file must then be referred to a deputy or district judge for directives as the whether statements, document and trial together.

6. costs of the claimant app 2nd sept referred to trial judge.

So i am concerned. The judge has been rather specific about what he said about just adding an extra column. But we already established that we couldn't really do that easily in the format it is currently in. Am i still complying with the order by doing what we said i should do which is re-arrange the layout of the table and combining rows ? Or should i do the above to the letter and maybe also do the revised layout version too ?

[jaguarsuk]

You need to find out how the builder calculated the labour element, then split the labour costs between the two.

[Ssssssssss]

Yes add it to the tiling.

OK perfect. So tiling is sorted out.

The only question I think i have left is when something overlaps something else.

So I have

1. Tiling - different tiles to those contractually agreed have been installed and they have been install badly.
For this - cost includes Removal of all equipment (sink, shower etc) , retile, put back all equipment (sink Shower etc). This is because you can't re-tile without removing everything from the room first.

2. Shower Tray - the shower tray has not been installed properly, creaks, is scratched and is not the mobility shower level asked for.
For this - cost includes the price of a new shower tray PLUS the labour and materials to remove it and install the right one at the right level.

So - the shower tray issue's labour costs for removing the shower and reinstalling it has already been included in the tiling item because re-tiling means this has to be done too. So the shower tray cost is £200 goods which is the new shower tray, plus the labour to remove the old one and put the new one in which is already included in the retiling costs.

Do you know how i can sensibly articulate this in the costings ?

[jaguarsuk]

Yes add it to the tiling.

[Ssssssssss]

Merge the box for 3.1, .3.2 and 3.3 for cost and put in £3,000 as it is the complete cost of the tiling repair.

OK i'll attempt to do that throughout. I think i'm understanding now.

I've also put separately that the wrong tiles were bought.

Should I instead of separating this out, also add this to the overall Tiling issue ?
I'm assuming i would as the remedy is the same again which is a total tile re-fit.

So my tiling issue would be "different tiles to those contractually agreed have been installed and they have been install badly." or something like that ?

[jaguarsuk]

Merge the box for 3.1, .3.2 and 3.3 for cost and put in £3,000 as it is the complete cost of the tiling repair.

[Ssssssssss]

To me those are not two issues they are one.

Tiling - Layout Vertical setting out of tiles causing large gaps and Dot and Dab method causing uneven tiles - £3,000

That's how it should have originally been laid out on the schedule. The Tiling is the issue, and the cost to correct it is £3,000 the rest is an explanation as to why it's an issue.

You have been too granular with the schedule it would seem, again in your desire to over inform you have complicated things down the line. Basically you need to correct the schedule, you're not rewriting it as all the same issues are there and are just reformatting it to make sense.

I'm kicking myself. I wrote the schedule with the expert in mind not really thinking about the cost side of things.

I think i was kind of trying to do what you said above with the numbering and headings. Could you take a look ?

I put in a number 3 - Tiling issues (xXXXXX)

Then under that i put 3.1, 3.2 etc etc - which is the too granular bit you mentioned.

But judge is telling me to put a number in each box now. Should i maybe write to court and tell them its not possible and i need to change the layout ?

I'm so scared now of screwing this up further.

I've added the copy of it here - the schedule.