Tweet
Draft POC for you to amend as desired:
Further Particulars of Claim:
The Defendant identified himself as a chartered building surveyor and member of RICS in his advertisements
The Defendant provided a CV identifying himself as a "Fully qualified Chartered Building Engineer and Surveyor" including the use of postnominals C.BuildE and MCABE (denoting chartership and membership of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers".
In fact the Defendant had been expelled from the RICS in 2014 and had chartered status revoked in 2017.
The Claimant was induced into a contract after the misrepresentation described in the preceding paragraphs was made to him regarding the status of the Defendant and as a result the Claimant has suffered loss
The Claimant instructed the defendant to prepare a survey on a house property he was considering purchasing.
The Claimant specifically instructed the Defendant to ascertain whether there was anything in the house that would complicate or render impossible extending the house, explicitly including an extension of the first floor over the garage.
The contract also included a term that the presence of any visible asbestos would be noted.
The Defendant's report (received by email dd mm yy) did not identify any visible asbestos; nor did it state likely areas where asbestos could interfere with the extension proposed by the Claimant. The survey contained statements indicating that no significant expenditure could be anticipated with respect to any single aspect of the property; and that there were no reasons why the property should not be extended over and above the garage.
The claimant relied upon the defendant’s report and purchased the property.
Subsequently untreated, unpainted, visible asbestos forming the entirety of the garage ceiling and within the ground floor and first floor soffits of the property was identified
Failing to identify the visible asbestos or explicitly warn of the possibility of its presence, the Defendant has breached a) the terms and conditions of the contract, and b) the duty of care to the Claimant contrary to Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and as a result the Claimant has suffered loss
The sum claimed reflects the total costs incurred by the Claimant in removing the asbestos such that the specified building works could take place. This is also a reasonable estimate of the minimum diminution in value of the property, given that this is the amount a reasonable person would deduct from the value of a comparable property containing asbestos. However, notwithstanding the diminution in property value, the Defendant's breaches also prevented the Claimant from forgoing the purchase of the property and allowing the claimant to limit his expenditure. In either case, the total loss incurred by the Defendant's actions including misrepresentation is best reflected by the total cost of the removal of the asbestos.
don't forget to number paragraphs and add statement of truth.
Use font 12 and line spacing 1.5
regarding your statement:"These additional instructions would have established an additional duty of care on a qualified buildings surveyor in the manner of Farley vs. Skinner [2001] UKHL 49 "
I understand the import of that case is about the measure and availability of damages for distress,not about the duty of care in tort and the duty of care in contract.
Did you find that info in a commentary? a link please?
If you are going to quote case law you need to show how that case is pertinent to your claim
Further Particulars of Claim:
The Defendant identified himself as a chartered building surveyor and member of RICS in his advertisements
The Defendant provided a CV identifying himself as a "Fully qualified Chartered Building Engineer and Surveyor" including the use of postnominals C.BuildE and MCABE (denoting chartership and membership of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers".
In fact the Defendant had been expelled from the RICS in 2014 and had chartered status revoked in 2017.
The Claimant was induced into a contract after the misrepresentation described in the preceding paragraphs was made to him regarding the status of the Defendant and as a result the Claimant has suffered loss
The Claimant instructed the defendant to prepare a survey on a house property he was considering purchasing.
The Claimant specifically instructed the Defendant to ascertain whether there was anything in the house that would complicate or render impossible extending the house, explicitly including an extension of the first floor over the garage.
The contract also included a term that the presence of any visible asbestos would be noted.
The Defendant's report (received by email dd mm yy) did not identify any visible asbestos; nor did it state likely areas where asbestos could interfere with the extension proposed by the Claimant. The survey contained statements indicating that no significant expenditure could be anticipated with respect to any single aspect of the property; and that there were no reasons why the property should not be extended over and above the garage.
The claimant relied upon the defendant’s report and purchased the property.
Subsequently untreated, unpainted, visible asbestos forming the entirety of the garage ceiling and within the ground floor and first floor soffits of the property was identified
Failing to identify the visible asbestos or explicitly warn of the possibility of its presence, the Defendant has breached a) the terms and conditions of the contract, and b) the duty of care to the Claimant contrary to Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and as a result the Claimant has suffered loss
The sum claimed reflects the total costs incurred by the Claimant in removing the asbestos such that the specified building works could take place. This is also a reasonable estimate of the minimum diminution in value of the property, given that this is the amount a reasonable person would deduct from the value of a comparable property containing asbestos. However, notwithstanding the diminution in property value, the Defendant's breaches also prevented the Claimant from forgoing the purchase of the property and allowing the claimant to limit his expenditure. In either case, the total loss incurred by the Defendant's actions including misrepresentation is best reflected by the total cost of the removal of the asbestos.
don't forget to number paragraphs and add statement of truth.
Use font 12 and line spacing 1.5
regarding your statement:"These additional instructions would have established an additional duty of care on a qualified buildings surveyor in the manner of Farley vs. Skinner [2001] UKHL 49 "
I understand the import of that case is about the measure and availability of damages for distress,not about the duty of care in tort and the duty of care in contract.
Did you find that info in a commentary? a link please?
If you are going to quote case law you need to show how that case is pertinent to your claim
Comment