MCOL Response to Defence

[wormhandler]

When I say human beings, specifically I mean ME

[wormhandler]

The installer of the park wifi told me it was completely safe. In the next breath he told me he had a mate that lived near a telephone mast. 35 years old. Yes, he got cancer and 'hes not here anymore' said his mate.

[Amethyst]

You're entitled to have concerns. The installation has ruined your enjoyment of the plot.

The transfer of the caravan to an alternative plot on another part of the site ( charging you £6k ) but transferring off site for free is an odd one.

Has he mentioned that in his defence at all ? I'm wondering if that somehow included cancelling the tenancy on the current plot and the new plots rental ? Rather than a simple 'towing' fee. Was his offer in writing or anything ? Anything in the licence agreement about moving plots etc?

Otherwise it sounds like it was simply made up to make you leave the site.

[des8]

The first question is "Did the site owner need planning permission, and did he seek it or a certificate of permitted development"
If the answer is "no" or "don't know" then report it to the enforcement officer of the local authority.

Could you post up details of your Particulars of Claim and the Defence, possibly via admin@legalbeagles
There is a lot of rubbish on internet about radiation hazards, and if that is part of your claim you might just need an expert witness.

[wormhandler]

The first question is "Did the site owner need planning permission, and did he seek it or a certificate of permitted development"
If the answer is "no" or "don't know" then report it to the enforcement officer of the local authority.

Could you post up details of your Particulars of Claim and the Defence, possibly via admin@legalbeagles
There is a lot of rubbish on internet about radiation hazards, and if that is part of your claim you might just need an expert witness.

Des8, Ive not explored that one, Ill look at it tomorow, My point is that the law says he should put the installation under control by various activities, the most important I think being the measuring of the radiation and calculating the exposure levels allowed to those exposed to it. The actual technical details dont matter. He hasnt complied with his responsibilites and noone knows what is going on.

[wormhandler]

You're entitled to have concerns. The installation has ruined your enjoyment of the plot.

The transfer of the caravan to an alternative plot on another part of the site ( charging you £6k ) but transferring off site for free is an odd one.

Has he mentioned that in his defence at all ? I'm wondering if that somehow included cancelling the tenancy on the current plot and the new plots rental ? Rather than a simple 'towing' fee. Was his offer in writing or anything ? Anything in the licence agreement about moving plots etc?

Otherwise it sounds like it was simply made up to make you leave the site.

He has mentioned the offers in his defence, His original verbal offer was to scare me, it didnt work and then he wouldnt communicate at all, so I had to start proceedings. I dont think he is malign, just incompetent and didnt think or know of the health hazards or his obligations. As Ive said, Im really relying on his not complying with the 'Statutory Instrument 588:2016' .

[wormhandler]

What exactly are you concerned about? The power level permitted for a wifi signal is very low. One of the more powerful wifi transmitters for providing wide coverage is rated at 150mW. Do you use a mobile phone, or cordless phones? Probably more dangerous because they are so close to the body. How do you connect to the internet? Wifi? With your own wifi hub.

I dont think the technical aspect of this is a primary concern, but the figure of 4W has been mentioned. There are 4 transmitters on the mast, I dont know if thats each or total. If its each its 106 times your figure, and my van is 2 metres from it. No thanks.

[wormhandler]

Des8, Ive not explored that one, Ill look at it tomorow, My point is that the law says he should put the installation under control by various activities, the most important I think being the measuring of the radiation and calculating the exposure levels allowed to those exposed to it. The actual technical details dont matter. He hasnt complied with his responsibilites and noone knows what is going on.

Ive now examined the HSE website in more detail, and think that the HSE dont deal with caravan sites! It is the Local Authority, in any case Ive filled both of their forms in and I await results. Ive called the Local Authority and they did seem more helpful than I thought they would be! Thanks again

[wormhandler]

The first question is "Did the site owner need planning permission, and did he seek it or a certificate of permitted development"
If the answer is "no" or "don't know" then report it to the enforcement officer of the local authority.

Could you post up details of your Particulars of Claim and the Defence, possibly via admin@legalbeagles
There is a lot of rubbish on internet about radiation hazards, and if that is part of your claim you might just need an expert witness.

I will post up the Particulars, The Claim, and my response asap, thanks again

[wormhandler]

Tried many times, hope they are here...

[Amethyst]

Look like it Will have a read through

[Amethyst]

It is denied the Defendant erected Wi-Fi transmitting equipment
in July 2018. The works referred to in the Particulars relate to
replacement equipment already in situ when the Claimant took over
ownership of the Caravan on the Pitch.

7. The Wi-Fi equipment in situ on the utility building near the
Pitch would have been obvious to the Claimant when he took over
ownership of the Caravan.

Was that the case or is that one of the parts you wish to respond to as inaccurate ?

If so do you have pictures of your caravan that show this utility building in the background or anything. Or pictures of the new WiFi transmitter / old one

And is WiFi actually a service included in the rent agreement?


Thinking that kills any view type argument if it was a working mast that replaced a non working mast.

[Amethyst]

Ok partially answering my own question


6.It is denied that the Wi-Fi equipment replaced an existing functioning system.

On several occasions, the Claimant met with officials (Mr Xxxxxxxxx) of the Defendant to express concern and discuss the detrimental effects of the equipment installed adjacent to the utility building. In thesemeetings the Claimant received several assurances that the existing installation was inoperative, redundant and had never worked.

The assurances received allayed concerns and although apprehensive, the Claimant continued residence without protest

The Defence and Counterclaim document indicates the original equipment was 'in situ' and not 'in operation'..

The Defendant is put to proof that the original system was in operation during the early part of the Claimants tenure.

The new installation consists of completely different components, mounted on a different and new mast.

7.It is admitted that the Claimant noticed the original equipment during the initial period of residence and as stated in Paragraph 6 and frequently requested Health and Safety assurance, the Claimant wasrepeatedly informed by officers of the Defendantthat the installation was not functioning.

[Amethyst]

Also - is there actually a counterclaim ? Doesn't seem to be one in the defence document ?

[wormhandler]

Amethyst, I boug ht the caravan and didnt consider the wifi in the first place. I did become concerned after a month or so and constantly pestered the office about safety certificates, they would roll their eyes as I came in, 'not him again!' I was told many times that the system didnt work, they sounded annoyed about it not working, as if their contractor had failed. I was astonished when I saw the workmen outside the van. The proprietor just wont talk. I had to start the action to communicate. Still didnt work really. There does not seem to be a counterclaim.

Photos..... This shows the old mast and the new stuff. It also shows the fence, and I think shows that the mast is in the plot. The distance from the mast to the van is almost exactly 2 metres