MCOL Response to Defence

[wormhandler]

Ps. I hope you can enlarge the photo!

[wormhandler]

This is all Ive got as a 'contract' its very generic and doesnt mention wifi.

[des8]

Apologies for not responding and joining in further but I can't open WORD documents

[wormhandler]

wow..

[Amethyst]

Apologies for not responding and joining in further but I can't open WORD documents

I'll print them to PDF and reupload. I know I have problems with Word as well when I'm not on big 'puter. xxx

Okay see if this works des8

[Amethyst]

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

So your caravan is the one on the left of the picture and that's the 'new' mast on the 'Utility' building ( have to say from the Defence I imagined something a tad more substantial - it looks like an outdoor toilet building lol ) Does it create any difference appearance wise from the old, non operational one ?

Also what's the taller pole ?

I've removed first page from the rent terms as it was basically just your personal details ( which you don't really want to be posting publicly )

[Amethyst]

You haven't sent off the reply to defence yet have you? Should be able to sort out some amendments to your reply to the defence before sending it in with the Directions Questionnaire if not.

[des8]

Thanks Ame, i don't have Office (I use Libre) and can't be bothered to download viewers (I'm a lazy b*****)

Re the contents of the POC I hope you can prove the statement "this new equipment emits electromagnetic radiation known to cause serious health damage."
It is a very contentious subject, and I see no indisputable proof either way

[Amethyst]

It is an insanely contentious issue I agree. I don't know what the court relies on as default when there's no expert opinion presented - World Health Organisation Research papers? anything like that? - or do they have to engage an independent expert for each case?
This is the Ofcom requirements mentioned in the defence https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...55/IR_2007.pdf
I'd hope there have been more up to date requirements as signal strength etc increases ( technical stuff I don't really know much on but 10 years is a long time in tech )

I think, personally, that the REASONABLE, option ( and maybe an option that can be further requested ?) would have been for the site owner to relocate the Claimant's van to another part of the park away from the Wifi antenna. Whether or not there is a proven issue, it was obviously a serious issue to the Claimant, who had raised it multiple times BEFORE the decision was made to replace the non-working antenna. Doing that without consultation was going to cause a dispute - which was entirely foreseeable.

That the site owner decided, once the dispute that he knew would happen, happened, to offer to remove the caravan from the site ( and cancel the tenancy??) for FREE,or charge him £6k as a penalty to relocate it to another plot within the park...seems to say he just wanted the CLaimant to leave the park but had no reasonable reason for eviction?...…. whereas he could quite simply resolved the issue possibly could even have swapped plots with a tenant who had complained about poor wifi signal .

Worth thinking about changing the angle a little following the defence?

[wormhandler]

So your caravan is the one on the left of the picture and that's the 'new' mast on the 'Utility' building ( have to say from the Defence I imagined something a tad more substantial - it looks like an outdoor toilet building lol ) Does it create any difference appearance wise from the old, non operational one ?

Also what's the taller pole ?

I've removed first page from the rent terms as it was basically just your personal details ( which you don't really want to be posting publicly )

Taller pole is the original non working system

[wormhandler]

It is an insanely contentious issue I agree. I don't know what the court relies on as default when there's no expert opinion presented - World Health Organisation Research papers? anything like that? - or do they have to engage an independent expert for each case?
This is the Ofcom requirements mentioned in the defence https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...55/IR_2007.pdf
I'd hope there have been more up to date requirements as signal strength etc increases ( technical stuff I don't really know much on but 10 years is a long time in tech )

I think, personally, that the REASONABLE, option ( and maybe an option that can be further requested ?) would have been for the site owner to relocate the Claimant's van to another part of the park away from the Wifi antenna. Whether or not there is a proven issue, it was obviously a serious issue to the Claimant, who had raised it multiple times BEFORE the decision was made to replace the non-working antenna. Doing that without consultation was going to cause a dispute - which was entirely foreseeable.

That the site owner decided, once the dispute that he knew would happen, happened, to offer to remove the caravan from the site ( and cancel the tenancy??) for FREE,or charge him £6k as a penalty to relocate it to another plot within the park...seems to say he just wanted the CLaimant to leave the park but had no reasonable reason for eviction?...…. whereas he could quite simply resolved the issue possibly could even have swapped plots with a tenant who had complained about poor wifi signal .

Worth thinking about changing the angle a little following the defence?

Im hoping the court will rely on Statutory Instrument 588 'The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations'

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160588_en.pdf

Im sorry, but the owner subsequently made the offer to move my caravan free, because his solicitor told him to. I thought it was the beginning of a negotiation and countered with 'move it and sell it for me free' and he didnt respond. I now think that relations have deteriorated massively and I dont want to reside on the park at all.

[wormhandler]

Thanks Ame, i don't have Office (I use Libre) and can't be bothered to download viewers (I'm a lazy b*****)

Re the contents of the POC I hope you can prove the statement "this new equipment emits electromagnetic radiation known to cause serious health damage."
It is a very contentious subject, and I see no indisputable proof either way

As Ive said elsewhere, the owner should have taken various steps to 'control' his installation and he hasnt. This failure has caused the stress.

[wormhandler]

Hope this has something to do with it.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.../2018/263.html

The Defendant hasnt applied for Building Control permissions from the local council.
Have I the right to feel confident?

[wormhandler]

Just for information, the County Court Business Centre has just confirmed they have sent the case documents to the wrong address (not to me) they said they would email them immediately, but so far they have not arrived. I hope it doesnt damage things.

[wormhandler]

Would just like to say that the Local Authority have confirmed to me that they are investigating the wi fi mast (old and new) as it does not have permissions - Thank you LeaglBeagles. Also the Directions Questionnaire directs me to liaise with the other side, Ive emailed them and there has been no response. So Ive submitted it anyway. Is this usual?