**won** Hello, and woe! - Court Claim for 'dangerous' DIY...

[jaguarsuk]

I think I'll be fine re. etiquette as I've done this before. Perhaps the only thing I'm concerned about are the correct arguments if I do end up being ambushed by new evidence or a vastly altered plee and the judge doesn't seem as bothered by how that puts me out etc... I take it I will need three copies of virtually everything to date etc... Inc. Letters with a separate folder for WP marked items?

Yes, you'll need copies to be able to hand to the bench and the originals should the Claimant wish to examine them.

If it is the case that you have not had a copy of the cause of action, if the Judge rules that it is in fact satisfactory that is where you bring up deficient service and ask for an adjournment. I know it sticks in the throat to have to take more time off and come back to court, but better to do that then lose because you haven't taken the time to regroup.

I honestly don't know why the court couldn't email you a copy of it given you have told them you haven't been served and they have it.

My guess is he'll have done some googling and try to claim that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.49 you did not perform with reasonable skill or care, that being his CoA. He won't have thought about the fact that CRA 2015 came into force after the inspection, thus can't be retrospectively applied and secondly for him to have consumer rights he had to have a contract with you as your customer.

Now that's purely conjecture, but I don't think I'll be far off.

[GBExile]

I doubt it will be the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It is more than likely be the Building Regs cross referenced by 16th/17th Edition & maybe Part P in addition. it may be another thread but I distinctly remember wiring to outside buildings.

[jaguarsuk]

I don't think he'll introduce anything new, it'll just be an attempt at rewording what he has already put in his statement of case and/or things that he'll try to add in desperation that are totally irrelevant. I can't see how he can possibly come up with a CoA when none exists.

[GBExile]

I don't think he'll introduce anything new, it'll just be an attempt at rewording what he has already put in his statement of case and/or things that he'll try to add in desperation that are totally irrelevant. I can't see how he can possibly come up with a CoA when none exists.

You don't need a contract with unauthorised electrical work. The same as unauthorised gas work by a non competent/qualified person.The person doing the work needs to be competent & also notify the council of works done that are notifiable under the building regs & whatever the code was at the time ie 16th or 17th Edition.

For example if the OP installed external electricity to an out building it is/would have been required by law to be armored cable with a separate RCD in the fuse box/ consumer unit. External power supplies are notifiable & so is making any changes to the consumer unit & must be tested & the results filed/supplied to the council also.

The person doing the work is the person legally obliged to conform to the legislation. Not the homeowner.

That is the only thing I can think of that might be of dodgy ground. If its not mentioned in court the OP will be in & out in 5 minutes.

[jaguarsuk]

You don't need a contract with unauthorised electrical work. The same as unauthorised gas work by a non competent/qualified person.The person doing the work needs to be competent & also notify the council of works done that are notifiable under the building regs & whatever the code was at the time ie 16th or 17th Edition.

For example if the OP installed external electricity to an out building it is/would have been required by law to be armored cable with a separate RCD in the fuse box/ consumer unit. External power supplies are notifiable & so is making any changes to the consumer unit & must be tested & the results filed/supplied to the council also.

The person doing the work is the person legally obliged to conform to the legislation. Not the homeowner.

That is the only thing I can think of that might be of dodgy ground. If its not mentioned in court the OP will be in & out in 5 minutes.

The OP did not do the work, the OP issues a Certificate on the installation in 2007 in line with his qualification at the time with a recommendation of re inspection in 2012.

The Claimant is trying to claim some 12 years later because he chose when buying the property not to have his own inspection done and having not had the re-inspection in 2012 completed (or further that would have been due in 2017) that the OP is liable for remedial works due to not properly inspecting the installation.

When the work was carried out the Claimant was not the home owner and the OP has conformed to all relevant requirements of his level of competency.

The claimant doesn't have a clue what he is doing, so I fully expect him to try to introduce anything and everything he can as he clutches at straws to try to extract money out of the OP.

[GBExile]

I do not think you understand what I am saying. No offence.

[jaguarsuk]

I do not think you understand what I am saying. No offence.

I think you might be missing what I am saying, the OP has complied with the regulations he was obliged to comply with at the time per his registration and he was authorised plus registered with the correct body to carry out the certification. This is not unauthorised electrical works or inspection.

He issued the certificate and made all the correct recommendations in line with all the parts of the regulations he was supposed to, was registered to and this is why the claimant has no CoA.

He was competent, registered and compliant in what he did, but the claimant having allowed his electrical installation to deteriorate over the course of 12 years while not following the correctly advised re inspection recommendations is now looking for someone else to blame to try to cover the cost of the hole he's got himself into.

[GBExile]

I think you might be missing what I am saying, the OP has complied with the regulations he was obliged to comply with at the time per his registration and he was authorised plus registered with the correct body to carry out the certification. This is not unauthorised electrical works or inspection.

He issued the certificate and made all the correct recommendations in line with all the parts of the regulations he was supposed to, was registered to and this is why the claimant has no CoA.

He was competent, registered and compliant in what he did, but the claimant having allowed his electrical installation to deteriorate over the course of 12 years while not following the correctly advised re inspection recommendations is now looking for someone else to blame to try to cover the cost of the hole he's got himself into.

Ok.

Did he issue the council the scope of the works & the test results concluded after installation? The certification goes to the homeowner & a copy to the council.

Did he fit armoured cable & fit a separate section on the consumer unit for external electrics?

I think you might have to appreciate these regulations are down to the individual who carries out the work. That is unavoidable regardless of time.

Now I know you have tried to cover the OP to the best of your ability but the above is the offence, if there is one.

But the above is fact.

[swiss_toni]

GBexile no offence; but you clearly do not know what you are talking about WRT electrical installations and especially those pre-2004.

In any case *I DID NOT DO THE WORK* the OP only assumes I have, for reasons unknown. The work the OP specifically has an issue with was done in 1992 (estimate) for the record, the external items are not being held to account and in any case were circa 1985 and excluded from the tests that I *did* do in 2007.

Even today there is no submission of any results or Part P requirement regarding a TEST of an installation, nor is a test on an existing installation got anything to do with building regulations. You are making the exact same mistake / confusion as the claimant there. You are utterly confused if you think the council / building regulation ever collect test results, even for a new build, they could not be less interested, Part P self certification merely generates a 2 line letter to the council 'This property has had x type of work (e.g. outdoors, bathroom, new circuit, new consumer unit) on y date by Z persons who are certified by the Stroma scheme number 123456 etc...', it is that detailed (or not).

[swiss_toni]

Anyway... he has sent me a proper unhinged email, acussing me of sending him an 'aggressive letter' (which I will post too, but it isn't) and denying he has submitted anything new to the court. Unfortunately I can't upload either until I get home.

I was able to listen to the recorded call and can confirm the court guy on the phone said it was a 'updated plee' on the 9th August which must mean a new CoA.

[GBExile]

Ok you didn't do the work. I am not going to argue with you but all I am saying is it may well be mentioned in court,

But I kind of take offence keeping in mind.....I have:

EAL Level II for Domestic Electrical Installers

City & Guilds 2382-100 - Level 3 Certificate in the Requirements for Electrical Installations BS7671:2008 17^th Edition

Full Scope Part P

City &Guilds 2377

But please carry on but I will tell you now I do know what I am talking about.

Best of luck.

I do not have NICEIC Elecsa NAPIT Stroma etc which would allow me to test the install & notify the council.

The same as I am not gas safe.

[swiss_toni]

Offence or not, if that is true then some of the things you are saying above are truly worrying.

[swiss_toni]

Oh boy.

***

[recieved today approx 3pm]

Dear Mr Defendant

I have been advised by my wife that you have sent a threatening letter through the post [eh? the only letter sent was a printed copy of the email below]
In November last year I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, the house was being updated to sell. Whilst having small routine electrical work done, I was advised with these exact words '' your house could have gone up in flames at any time'' due to your negligence.
I too have spent time and money on this claim, whilst trying to continue working and having cancer treatment. My wife also took time off work to allow the electricians to work out exactly what you had done in the property and how to rectify it.
You will be pleased to hear that I am not seeking compensation for the loss of my wife's earnings or indeed the stress you have put my family under at this difficult time.
Today I am having scans and cannot answer any of your questions until I return home tonight.
However I can provide evidence that I have tried, to no avail, to have mediation with you.
My family is well catered for in the event of my death and this claim has nothing to do with monetary value, it has everything to do with the unethical approach you took knowing that a young family was moving in to your family home and to your parents, whom I believe had no idea that you falsified the electrical report.
I am NOT presenting any further documents in court that have not been disclosed to you and can provide proof to your claim
I am sorry that you have been suffering from exhaustion [my note - ????!] and as I have stated all along, I am willing to discuss this matter to resolve it in a satisfactory way without having to attend court, if you choose.
I look forward to your response.
Regards
Johnny Claimant

Regards
Johnny Claimant

---

From: Jimmy Defendant <redacted>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:05:08 PM
To: <redacted>
Subject: In re. of Claim 01234567 at the Anywhere County Court

Dear Mr. Claimant

With reference to the above claim (012345678), I have been advised that
you are presenting documents to court that you have not disclosed to
me. Aside the relevant CPR’s, this is against Para. 2 of the Order of
22nd July 2019. Please email those documents to <redacted> or
by letter post Special Delivery 9AM for me to receive at least 24
hours prior to the court hearing. Please note the email address
supplied has been specifically created and is to be used only for the
supply of the document(s) and not for general correspondence as my
earlier position on the use of email remains.

I also enclose the costs I will be seeking at the hearing assuming
that Judgement is made at that hearing. As per the relevant CPR, a
copy of these costs will be supplied to the court no less than 24
hours prior to the hearing.

(Att. 2 PDF files) [one is a carbon copy of this letter, the other the costs document]

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Defendant

16/08/2019

***

A sad tale but I don't actually think the whole truth if I'm honest, re illness.

My options as I see them are no reply, which may well be best (I did say not for general correspondance) or a one line reply;

"Re. 'I am NOT presenting any further documents in court that have not been disclosed to you and can provide proof to your claim' - can you confirm Yes or No if you have submitted a new Cause of Action to the Court as per the order of 22nd July?"

I am increasingly wondering if he will actually show up on Wednesday.

I just cannot believe the sheer volume of childish hearsay / libel this guy is happy to throw around. And if the claim was 'nothing to do with monetary value', is that not an admission it really is mere harassment?

[jaguarsuk]

Okay, so this might sound harsh, but the reality is:

1. His cancer and treatment are of no concern to you, it sounds like he thinks he can tug on the heart strings to get a result and that won't wash in court I'll tell you now.

2. His wife having to take time off or any work is of no consequence to you, you are not liable at all to him and her time off for their electrical work is their issue not yours.

3. Of course it's about principle, it always is and it's never about the money.

4. He should answer your query promptly, if he's not fit to conduct a claim he should employ a Solicitor to conduct it for him or should not have filed one in the first place.

5. Mediation failed because he can't get the simple fact that he has no Cause of Action and therefore no claim through his head, no amount of further ADR is going to resolve that. In any event you have offered him the opportunity to walk away and he has chosen not too.

6. I hope he presents the 'threatening letter' in court as he's clearly referring to your settlement offer stating that if he files a Notice of discontinuance you won't pursue him for costs, which is bog standard for claims and of course if he continues the threat is you'll ask for costs.

I would ring the court again to clarify what you had previously been advised, tell them that he's telling you about cancer treatment and saying things that lead you to believe that he may be confused, so ask if they could email a copy over to you if they persist he has filed on 9th.

If they can't then you'll need to raise it as an issue almost immediately in the hearing tomorrow and ask the judge whether indeed a CoA has been filed as ordered due to the confusion between the court and claimant plus lack of service upon you. If he hasn't you immediately ask the judge to dismiss the claim and request costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 due to his unreasonable conduct on the claim per your costs schedule, but at the very least witness expenses.

[swiss_toni]

Agree that sadly his condition should not influence anything. I hope it doesnt.

Phoned court, confirm a new Cause of Action was submitted 9th. They won't send it to me.

Advised to email one last time, if no joy, I have been given a court email so at least the judge should know before the hearing.

If this happens, should I make sure they see a copy of the previous response, or not?

Off to work now until 2130, I did try and change my shift

***

Below email already sent so too late if it's not 100% right

Dear Mr Claimant,


I have again contacted the Court who assure me that a new document relating to a revised Cause of Action was submitted or received on or around the 9th August.

I can again confirm I have not recieved a copy either by post, nor by email.

Please can you forward the documents as submitted to the court on the 9th August, as requested to file and serve in the Order of 22nd July 2019.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Defendant