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

[swiss_toni]

Just recieved a county court claim.

Claiming nearly £3k

Because...

I did some DIY work on my parents house (where I lived too)

That 12 years after purchase, the owner has been told is 'dangerous' (by someone with a vested interest in upselling).

Striking out order feels appropriate, but lets see what you all think...

And, hi!

[charitynjw]

Hi & welcome to LB.
Your post is rather spartan vis-a-vis details of the work carried out.
Also, what is being claimed? (Could you post up a redacted copy of the Particulars of Claim?)
Have you acknowledged the claim?
What is the issue date?

Striking out is a draconian step, one which courts often are reluctant to do unless the Claimant (or Defendant sometimes) has such a hopeless case that it is proper to do so in the interests of justice.

[swiss_toni]

Yup, spartan to start of with as I thought best not to clog up the 'welcome' forum with too much - this really annoys me (actually, everyone) on another forum I moderate.

Claim arrived by post yesterday, claimant initiated online. Has been acknowledged and time extended by 14 days, so now defence not due until very early July.

Claimant had previously phoned my business number out of the blue, finding my details easily from the internet, at end of phone call (he was very angry!) was told not to contact me again, but then sent two recorded letters which were signed for by others but I left unopened upon spotting the return address. About 10 days ago - just after letter no. 2 - I sent a polite letter to claimant informing him I considered his continued contact harrassment, since we have no personal or business relationship other than the tenuous fact he bought my parents house 12 years ago. Although of course you don't have to have met someone to have a liability towards them, I don't think I even met him once when he was viewing and would not even recognise him.

Letter sent by me to claimant today asking for copies of all documents referenced in the particulars, using template from this site.

I did read about striking out being considered draconian and I suppose at the end of the day a judge will want to give most parties the benefit of the doubt to at least say something even if nonsense.

I am reluctant to post too much as it would instantly identify the case (mind you, no more than what I've already written has), but I suppose I am going to have to if I want help.

Let me know if OK to carry on within this thread and I'll do so, posting the redacted claim PDF and a full timeline with dates

[charitynjw]

It's fine to carry on here.
If it needs to be moved, the whole thread can be .relocated lock, stock & barrel.

[Amethyst]

You're fine, I'll move you to the court forum Welcome.
(edit: done )

First thought is statute barred. But they may argue they only just found out about it so you want additional argument. It can't be that dangerous if it hasn't exploded/collapsed in 12 years. You lived in the house and did some DIY. There was no contract between you and your parents. Was it electrical and done without any certification etc ?

Did your parents sell the house to this new owner or has it transferred ownership through a Will etc ? ( if sold any issue should have been raised by a surveyor)

It will help if you can type out the particulars of claim ( as anonymously as you can without leaving important details out )

[jaguarsuk]

You say it's initiated online, so I assume the particulars of claim are very brief. Has the claimant sent a more detailed particulars of claim?

You're going to need to share them to allow proper advice.

[swiss_toni]

Thank you both (Jaguar posted whilst I was typing).

To answer your questions;

House was sold by my parents, I was only a non-paying tenant or whatever the correct term is (had to sign the usual disclaimer that I would not stay on and claim rights!). Yes, claimant alledges dangerous electrical work - but, I was as it happens, I was personally Part P registered for some of the period I lived there (I gave this up around 2009 to retrain in an unrelated field, and my current business is unrelated in trading style and scope); however, for the record the main house was rewired in the 1970s, separate garage 1984, extension built new in 1986. Lots of other companies, plus my father, did work their during my period living there and I cannot believe electrical work has not been done by the buyer since purchase.

I left home at 19 c. 2000 but came back for a few more years c. 2005-2008. I did do a full EICR (was called a PIR) test of the house in 2007 (again, no money changing hands) and documented it in the usual way, a full year before sale. Buyer / Claimant admits he did not engage his own safety checks.

I deny anything dangerous anyway, just for the record, especially that I ever did 'major works' as is claimed. No idea what or why they think this.

I know what has happened here. Some chump electrician with an unpaid summer cruise bill has tested eveything to the latest (19th) installation edition, so of course some of it will fail by the latest standards - most average pre-2004 new build houses would. The technical arm of the NICEIC, the Electrical Safety Council, publish ITT endorsed guidance that all testing should be done to the standards applicable at the time. Fine to advise upgrades, but, e.g. you could not, and should never, fail a 1970s built house for only having wired fuses. But, it happens all the time. I guarantee it has happened here.

There is absolute nonsense in the claim about an intruder alarm 'straining' the electrical system. Yes, all 300ma I'm sure . Can't wait to see all those emails claimant says he has from the electrician about all that.

*But, I really don't want to get bogged down in technical detail a lot of readers here might not understand, nor in my defence unless appropriate*

Apparently no statutory time bar for 'Property Misdecriptions Act' - but they don't mention that & are going after the wrong person.

I would have thought time unreasonable myself. There is a Part P redress scheme but claimant would fail on all 3 tests;

0) Ask contractor to put it right (fair enough, he did do this, but I simply responded he is not, and never was, a customer)
1) Less than 6 years
2) You must be the customer (not someone who has moved into a house!)
3) You must leave everything untouched until approved inspection unless immediately life threatening (claimant appears to have had all work done without 2nd opinion)

Something to note is that I did not always ask my parents if they ever wanted anything doing to the house, and certainly no money ever changed hands when they did want something e.g. an outside light. My opener was not ever intended to decieve, but despite the fact I was for a time personally Part P registered I was never acting in anything other than a doing-it-myself capacity within my own home.

Time bar aside, my thinking is that is without some contract between us, it even reasonable to approach a former occupant unconnected with the sale and demand money at any time?

It's almost impossible to post without redacting anything other than the names - so I will go ahead and do that now.

[swiss_toni]

Note; Claimant makes many mistakes below, but most important is that I was NOT NICEIC registered, only Part P *adminstered by the NICEIC* from c. 2005-2009. This is a big difference, chalk and cheese, though mostly irrelevent to the claim I suppose.

In fact, most of what he has written is an angry rant full of supposition, assumptions, and mistakes. I'm sure you've all seen worse.

I assume 28th is deemed to be date of claim, as I don't have access to paper copy at this exact minute?

Make safe electrical work carried out on 16 Herbert Terrace, Anywheretown	£2,181.42
Interest Interest calculated at 8% for 1 days (28 May 2019 to 29 May 2019)	£0.48
Claim fee	£105
Claim Total	£2,286.90

Reason for claim:

The defendant carried out and installed dangerous electrical work to my property. I purchased the property in April 2008, prior to that date the defendant part installed a fire alarm, smoke alarm and entry system to the property and outbuildings. In addition he carried out major electrical work. In April 2007 whilst registered with NICEIC, he voluntarily completed a Periodic Inspection Report, which I believe was to assist in selling the property. The report states that the electrical work at the property was tested and safe and met regulations. In April this year (2019) I was having a new kitchen fitted and needed some minor electrical work. The NICEIC registered electrician I employed established that the electrical wiring and system at the property was totally unsafe. Having looked at the Periodic Inspection provided by the defendant, he confirmed that the report appeared to have been made up. He established that there were many faults with the wiring and how the system had been wired in. He established that the wiring in the property was so dangerous that it could have resulted in a fire at any time. This included the fuse boards having the circuit breakers bypassed in order to eliminate a fault, live wires left unsafe under floorboards, circuits not configured correctly and part installation of entry system, smoke, fire and intruder alarms which were putting significant strain on the electrical system. What started out as moving a few electrical sockets and connecting an electric oven and hob, led to having to have three fuseboards replaced, fire, smoke and intruder alarms removed as well as considerable work on making the electrical circuits safe. I tried to contact the defendant and was eventually able to speak to him on the phone. When I explained to him what had happened and asked him if he would care to either rectify or contribute to the cost of rectifying the system, he became abusive and demanded that I no longer contact him. On the 27th April I sent the defendant a letter detailing what needed to be done and again asking him to contribute. This letter also confirmed that I was willing to discuss the situation and come to an agreement, it also confirmed that I was willing to pursue the matter legally if I did not get a response. This letter was sent by Registered post and I have confirmation that it was delivered. On the 16th May I sent a Letter Before Court, enclosing a copy of the letter sent on 27th April. I have since received a letter from the defendant denying any liability and claiming that I have been Harrasing him, in fact he goes on to say that he will take appropriate action in the civil and criminal courts should I proceed further with this claim**.

Timeline

April 2007	Periodic Inspection Report completed by DEFENDANT, confirming that all electrical systems at CLAIMANTS CURRENT ADDRESS are safe and meet regulations*
Late 2007	Offer made to purchase CLAIMANTS CURRENT ADDRESS survey carried out, electrical survey not carried out as Periodic Inspection Report, carried out by registered NICEIC produced
April 2008	Purchased CLAIMANTS CURRENT ADDRESS
April 2019	(CLAIMANTS) NICEIC registered electrician employed to carry out minor electrical work in connection with fitting of new kitchen
3rd April 2019	(CLAIMANTS) Electrician establishes that electrical system at property is totally unsafe, and confirms that Periodic Inspection Report is totally incorrect.
4th April	Tried to contact the defendant by telephone, message left.
5th April	Spoke to defendant on telephone, explained the nature of the call and asked the defendant to either rectify the problems or contribute towards making the electrical system safe. The defendant became abusive and demanded that I no longer contact him,
April 2019	Major electrical work carried out on property to make safe and conform to building regulations***
27th April 2019	Letter before Claim sent by registered post.
16th May 2018	Letter before Court Claim sent, enclosing copy of Letter before Claim.
22nd May 2019	Letter refuting any liability received from the defendant**. The letter hoes on to say that he considers my approaching him as harrasment and that should I continue with this action he will take further civil or criminal action against me.

[[* not correct, this is NOT what a PIR states, only 'satisfactory' from what can be seen to be tested, not under floors or in roofs, and certainly no testing of low voltage or unrelated systems e.g. alarms, telephones, smoke alarms, etc...
** completely untrue, letter was a mostly template letter, solely about harassment, plus I was unaware of any pending claim!
*** as ever 'building regulations' get confused by Joe Public with electrical safety]]

Evidence

Other	Periodic Inspection Report dated 21/04/2007, completed by DEFENDANT. Confirms that DEFENDANT is NICEIC registered and that his registration number is REDACTED
Letters, emails and other correspondence	Confirmation from NICEIC that DEFENDANT was registered as at that date.
Letters, emails and other correspondence	Letter before claim dated 27/4/2019
Letters, emails and other correspondence	Letter before Court dated 16/5/2019
Letters, emails and other correspondence	Letter from defendant refuting liability and threatening civil/criminal action for harassment
Photo evidence	Photographic evidence of electrical system and faults
Expert witness	NICEIC electrician employed to carry out work, is willing to confirm his findings.
Expert witness	Various emails from NICEIC registered electrician detailing work that needed to be done to make property safe.
Expert witness	Copies of invoices for work carried out

I have as stated today requested copies of the above 'evidence' by PoP retained 1st class letter.

Not too sure how an electrician in the pay of the claimant can be considered an expert witness, but there you go.

Just for the record, claimant should have had further testing done in April 2017 (ten years).

[charitynjw]

Apparently no statutory time bar for 'Property Misdecriptions Act' - but they don't mention that & are going after the wrong person.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...article/2/made

[ostell]

This has all the symptoms of an electrician looking towards getting the contract for a rewire job. I had this when it came to selling my Aunt's house when she died, after a price had been agreed for the sale, It was an attempt to reduce the price by £3,000. The report was even complaining that the sleeving for the earth wires was incorrect, being only green instead of green/yellow. I did point out that the wiring conformed to the regulations that existed at the time and the regs are not retrospective and, apart from 1 item, everything was safe. My sister chickened out and agreed to £1,000.

Interested to see those photographs of the "faults".

[swiss_toni]

Me too - I'm off to my other job now, and wont be back on until the AM

[charitynjw]

[jaguarsuk]

My first thought is to make an application to the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 24.3 as the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim due to pursuing the wrong defendant. However, if you are successful stand by for your parents receiving a claim form if he can track them down.

Alternatively if you want to defend the claim and if there is nothing written anywhere you did any of this, deny it. He has to prove you did.

the defendant part installed a fire alarm, smoke alarm and entry system to the property and outbuildings. In addition he carried out major electrical work.

Admit this, but correct how you were registered and to what standard

In April 2007 whilst registered with NICEIC, he voluntarily completed a Periodic Inspection Report, which I believe was to assist in selling the property.

Then add in the technical arm of the NICEIC, the Electrical Safety Council, publish ITT endorsed guidance that all testing should be done to the standards applicable at the time and that it was. Get a copy of the guidance as you'll need it to accompany your Witness Statement 14 days prior to the hearing.

This is also relevant in rebutting his claim

PIR states only 'satisfactory' from what can be seen to be tested, not under floors or in roofs, and certainly no testing of low voltage or unrelated systems e.g. alarms, telephones, smoke alarms, etc...

That table is lovely of him and should make sending him a CPR 31.14 Request very easy.

[swiss_toni]

Thanks for input (still at work on my one and only break BTW!)

Bearing in mind I am grateful for what you've written, and that I'm being curious rather than argumentative, why would approaching my surviving parent be any more successful and not just because of the long period of time? Personally I think if the case gets thrown out before it even starts he will toddle off tail between his legs and not 'waste' any more money, but you never know. Surely if it was this easy to get money back from a house vendor, this late on, everyone would do it? When I think of what we've had to go through, on a house not exactly sold as a doer-upper (although we knew full well when we bought the place the c**p had just been painted over) it makes me laugh a bit.

From a technical PoV the fire alarm, smoke alarm etc... e.g. low voltage systems are all out of scope of NICEIC, Part P etc... anyway, although I guess this is exactly what you are saying I would need to emphasise. I will certainly be using the ESC guidance on testing if it comes to actually having to turn up.

The table, by the way, is only lovely because moneyclaim online forced him to set it out that way - gawd knows what rubbish he would have produced otherwise! 31.14 request using this sites template sent this AM.

Any other opinions on strike out vs. defend? I'm not scared of going to court as I've done it twice now (plus coroners, now that was horrible - and we weren't even the interested party).

[jaguarsuk]

Bearing in mind I am grateful for what you've written, and that I'm being curious rather than argumentative, why would approaching my surviving parent be any more successful and not just because of the long period of time? Personally I think if the case gets thrown out before it even starts he will toddle off tail between his legs and not 'waste' any more money, but you never know.

Legally your parents employed you (I know they didn't pay you, but still) to do the testing and then presented the test as part of the sale of the house, therefore his claim should be against your parents who sold him the house. Your parents would then be claimant against you to recover their losses.

Surely if it was this easy to get money back from a house vendor, this late on, everyone would do it? When I think of what we've had to go through, on a house not exactly sold as a doer-upper (although we knew full well when we bought the place the c**p had just been painted over) it makes me laugh a bit.

And if new rules could be applied retrospectively the courts would be full day in day out with people suing each other for damages. He's clearly trying it on.

From a technical PoV the fire alarm, smoke alarm etc... e.g. low voltage systems are all out of scope of NICEIC, Part P etc... anyway, although I guess this is exactly what you are saying I would need to emphasise. I will certainly be using the ESC guidance on testing if it comes to actually having to turn up.

The table, by the way, is only lovely because moneyclaim online forced him to set it out that way - gawd knows what rubbish he would have produced otherwise! 31.14 request using this sites template sent this AM.

Any other opinions on strike out vs. defend? I'm not scared of going to court as I've done it twice now (plus coroners, now that was horrible - and we weren't even the interested party).

I mean if you're not bothered about going to court you have nothing to lose by applying to strike out the claim because if he did reissue the claim against your parents you would simply defend their claim anyway.

There is always a risk of making an application to the court, firstly you are going to have to spend £255 that you'll only get back if successful and secondly if he successfully defends against the application he can ask for his costs of doing so to be paid. That said, if you wanted to apply to strike out the claim here is how you'd go about it.

Personally I would say in my WS that my deceased parent was the one who employed me to do the testing.

Use form N244 with the following

3. An order for summary judgement under Part 24 against the Claimant on the whole of the claim because the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial. The attention of the respondent is drawn to the provisions of Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules and of the Practice Direction supplementing that Part. Under rule 24.5(1), if the respondent wishes to rely on written evidence at the hearing, he must file the written evidence and serve copies on every other party to the application at least 7 days before the summary judgement hearing.

4. Yes (see attahced)

5. Without a hearing

6. 0, 0, No

7. N/A

8. District

9. Claimant

9a. address for service on the claim form

10. attached Witness Statements

WS is very simple...

On or around <<Date of testing>> I was employed by <<Parent>> to carry out electrical testing on <<Address of property>>.

I provided a certificate to confirm <<what it confirms>> to <<Parent>> who is now sadly deceased.

I had no contract with <<Claimant>>.

<<Parent>> subsequently sold <<Address of prop>> to <<Claimant>> and I believe the certificate was presented to him during the sale.

Any alleged loss to the Claimant has arisen out of that contract between them for the sale and not from me.

The claim has not been brought against the correct Defendant and for that reason the the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.

There is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial. .

Pursuant to CPR 24.2 I respectfully request that the claim be dismissed and costs of this application be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant.