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

[jaguarsuk]

You may be right and if that is the case he’s going to find out that his work has only just begun.

Especially once you you move to strike out the claim, then it’s all on him to provide the evidence as to why it should proceed and so not providing it now is just a short term delay as he’ll have to evidence his claim at the strike out hearing.

[swiss_toni]

So, in the post today we have 'the evidence'. I had been writing a defence based on not having it, and was about to post it up as a work-in-progress, but will alter it now if only to remove any reference to not having sight of said evidence.

The good news is that it is a load of tut as expected.

He says things in his letters and PoC like 'the electrician said the fuseboard was dangerous and could kill my family'...

...the electricians emails are few in number, brief, in fact, to be fair, completely devoid of any finger pointing, but then also any direct quotation of the regs, and whilst they do indeed recommend a new fuseboard ASAP it is not for any given reason other than the one I'll talk about in a second.

There are sheaths and sheaths of estimates for his lovely new kitchen electrics which I'm sure is bound to please the court since several of them don't have a single item on them to do with the new fuseboards or any 'urgent' work, and lots of lovely 'have a great weekend, let me know if you want brass sockets or chrome' emails!

The multiple photos have basically siezed on one thing in 20 slightly different angles; that one of the circuit breakers has overheated. The electrician makes no comment on why, when or how other than it needs to be replaced. And, I agree with the electrician that as the circuit breakers are obselete (they are easily 30 years old and an 'old fashioned type' - they are not 'DIN' sized) [one] option would be to replace the entire (double) fuseboard.

There is no context to any of it, no reports, no readings, no attempt to aportion blame (by the new electrician), just an ongoing narrative that certain things over and above the might not be quite tip top and that they should be looked at before the kitchen is done. That's it.

Just one thing, in his letter before action he mentions a couple of things that he does not mention in the particulars, and pertinently isn't supported at all now I've seen the 'evidence', for example;

a) The DNO (the electricity network operator) 'agreed' the installation is 'dangerous'. Offers no paperwork to back this up, obviously.

b) That the dangerous installation could have 'killed him and his family'

c) That if he had bought the house without a test certificate he would have had it done himself

I would counter this with...

a) The DNO don't offer opinions like that, they are interested only in their side of the meter. The only time they get involved is that if an installation is so very dangerous it could literally kill they will pull their fuse out. This is rare.

b) He continued to use the installation past 2 points at which it should have been retested (2012 and 2017)

c) He should have done that anyway if he were concerned in any way, and even then see (b).

But if it is better not to pick hole in the letter before claim, only the PoC, then thats fine, if somone could comment that would be useful.

Meanwhile I will alter the defence and post it up...

[swiss_toni]

In the Northampton County Court (CCBC) Between Mr. Claimant and Mr. Defendant

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received claim ref. 0123456 from the Northampton CCBC (Moneyclaim) by post on the 29th May 2019.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3. The Particulars of Claim are ultimately vague and indicate the main issue to be; ‘The defendant [sic] carried out and installed dangerous electrical work to my property’, the property being 1 Any Street, Anytown, AB1 2CD, hereafter referred to as ‘the property’. The Defendant has never carried out any work for the Claimant or any agent, neither directly nor as a subcontractor, whether in the course of business for reward or as an individual.

4. This claim is for a substantial sum of monies the Claimant feels are owed to them, despite there being at no time any relationship or contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, and no clear breakdown as to how these costs arrived. Nor is there any evidence of genuine attempt to mitigate losses other than an outrageous request for the Defendant to attend the Claimant’s property and carry out unpaid work.

5. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

6. It is denied that the Defendant has ever entered into any contract with the Claimant for any goods or services, whether directly or by inference, at any time. The Defendant is a 3rd party to an unrelated transaction involving the sale of property completing in 2008. Any alleged loss to the Claimant has arisen out of that contract between the Claimant and the Vendor for the sale of the property, and not from the Defendant, a person with no financial interest or agency in the sale of the property.

7. Notwithstanding all other Defence points, the Defendant contends the sum claimed is in any event statute barred by virtue of Limitation Act 1980 section 2 and/or section 5.

8. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are unable to state when any contract was entered into, with whom, nor provide any evidence of such.

9. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are unable to state the exact locations and nature of any ‘dangerous electrical work’ that was allegedly carried out, at what time, and by whom.

10. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim make much reference to the fact that the Defendant was once a member of a ‘Part P’ registration scheme, albeit appearing to infer that the Defendant was a full NICEIC member, which is entirely different in scope and nature. It is assumed that the Claimant wishes to suggest that the Defendant has carried out unspecified works that would be in contravention of either membership. However, the Claimant then continues to make multiple comments regarding Security, Fire, and Access Control systems that are entirely out of scope of both Part P and British Standard BS 7671, "Requirements for Electrical Installations. IET Wiring Regulations".

11. Whilst it is not denied that the Defendant was between c.2005 and c.2009 a Part P registered person, it is denied that the Defendant has ever carried out substandard work in the property, prior to its purchase by the Claimant. If this were the case, the court is respectfully drawn to the attention of the approved Part P redress scheme, in which; (a) The complainant must be the customer, (b) Work must be less than 6 years old, and finally (c) Remedial work must not be carried out prior to inspection by an approved, independent party; noting the Claimant would fail these requirements at each stage.

12. It is specifically denied that the Defendant has ever carried out ‘major works’ as alluded to by the Claimant in his Particulars of Claim. The property was built, c.1930, was rewired in the late 1970s, a detached garage and major extension carried out in the early to mid 1980s. The main switchgear (e.g. fuseboard) dates from the late 1980s to early 1990s. As can be clearly determined given the Defendants age, these projects, which could legitimately be classed as major, had no contribution from the Defendant. Many other works e.g. replacement Bathroom(s), Kitchen etc… will have been carried out by contractors and/or their specific sub-contractors.

13. The Claimant mentions the Defendants said Part-P membership upon multiple occasions (although erroneously by stating that the Defendant was an ‘NICEIC member’), which it is assumed is in order to make the point that a ‘higher standard’ would be expected of such a member than an ordinary member of the public engaged in ‘do-it-yourself’ type activities. In reality, the same high standard is required of both members of the public and Part-P (or NICEIC) members; both must strictly comply to the edition of British Standard BS 7671, "Requirements for Electrical Installations. IET Wiring Regulations" that is in force at the time, though after 2004 certain activities, with much relaxed scope from 2013, being restricted to Part P or NICEIC registered persons.

14. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim makes reference to an electrical inspection of the property, carried out by the Defendant in April 2007. It is accepted that the Defendant provided a Periodic Inspection Report (‘PIR’) on the fixed electrical wiring and switchgear within the dwelling. This report specifically excluded hidden wires within the dwelling, and in this instance excluded the garage and outbuildings. As is usual, a recommendation of a subsequent test in 2012 was made. This was delivered to Mrs. A. DEFENDANT, the Defendant’s mother, who is now sadly deceased. The Defendant had no financial interest or agency in the subsequent sale of the property, nor any contact with the Claimant either directly or as part of the conveyancing process.

15. It appears from the Particular of Claims that the Claimant has not had the property retested in 2012 as recommended. As a result, the Defendant wonders at what point in time any issues may have been detected at an earlier stage and losses mitigated, despite the Defendant’s views on liability.

14. The Claimant suggests in his Timeline that he did not organise his own tests and inspections regarding the electrical system upon purchase of the property, but continues to mention electrical work carried out to outbuildings that were specifically excluded from the inspection of April 2007.

15.The Claimant states in his Timeline that in April 2007 a ‘Periodic Inspection Report completed by DEFENDANT, confirming that all electrical systems at 1 Any Street, Anytown are safe and meet regulations’ was produced. This appears to misunderstand both the scope of such a report and the specific details of this individual report, it is denied that the report states as per the Claimant, for example:

(i) The report specifically excludes hidden wiring e.g. within plaster, under floor and within roof voids.

(ii) The scope of the report will only cover the switchgear and fixed wiring of an installation, and passes no comment upon electrical and electronic systems such as alarms, smoke alarms, fire alarms and telephone or entry systems, nor any fixed appliance connected after an isolator.

(iii) The specific report excluded the garage and outbuildings (mistyped as ‘outhouses’ but corrected by hand at Summary of Page 2 of the report on the Claimant's evidence copy)

(iv) The report clearly states the estimated age of the original installation and switchgear and the need for a repeat test and inspection. It is not a document that is perpetually relevant.

16. The evidence submitted by the Claimant is vague and of little substance. In short, it does not appear to endorse the statements the Claimant makes in his Particulars. The Claimant upon sending copies of the evidence has retrospectively numbered the documents or collated documents that form the evidence. These will be specifically dealt with using the Claimant’s revised numbering;

(i). Periodic Inspection Report dated 21/04/2007. This document is accepted as having been carried out by the Defendant for the Vendor, as detailed in points 12. and 13. of the Defence.

(ii). Email between Claimant’s named electrician and Part P scheme administrator confirming Defendant’s former Part P registration, notwithstanding that this information was freely given on the front page of the above document.

(iii) and (iv). ‘Letter before claim’ and ‘Letter before court’. These letters were received but not opened at the time by the Defendant, there being no contractual or other relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant. The Claimant had already been informed that the Defendant did not wish to become involved in matters relating to the purchase of the Claimants house and the Vendor. The letters have subsequently been read and the Defendant contends they are essentially letters asking for money without due cause, and that it was reasonable and proper for them to be ignored in any event. The letter in which the Claimant asks the Defendant to consider the use of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolutions’ (ADRs) demonstrates the level of misunderstanding by the Claimant of our relationship, of which there is none.

(v). Letter sent to the Claimant by the Defendant suggesting potential grounds for Harassment. The Defendant stands by this letter, based on a Citizens Advice Bureau template and specifically refutes that it is of a ‘threatening’ nature as suggested by the Claimant. It is also denied that it specifically addresses liability for any act by the Defendant towards the Claimant, also as suggested by the Claimant in his List of Documents. The letter is written solely regarding potential grounds for harassment.

(vi). The undated and unannotated photographs appear to consist of pictures of an approx. 30 year old fuseboard of the type installed at the Claimant’s property, which has suffered thermal stress in one of the circuits. There are other thermal imaging camera photographs of what is assumed to be the same circuit upon which the sole annotated photograph appears to show a 4 degrees centigrade differential at the busbar between the end of the busbar and the circuit in question.

In the absence of any specific narrative in the emails detailed in (vii) the Defendant contends that regardless of the refuted liability of the Defendant towards the Claimant, that the balance of probabilities suggest this thermal stress to be as likely due to lack of maintenance, wear-and-tear, gradual failure through increased contact resistance of a near 30 year old item of switchgear, or possible overloading of the circuit by the household over the last 12 years than any act or omission on the part of the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that his inspection of 2007 was fair and correct given both the condition of the installation at the time, and the regulations that would have applied to the installation based on its age.

(vii). The emails between the Claimants electrician and the Claimant lack any specific narratives that quote Regulations or contain measurable data to back up the Claimant’s statements in the Particulars of Claim, e.g.

[Italics] “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.” [/Italics]

Save for a mention in the invoices (viii) of disconnection of an alarm system (wholly outside of Part P and inspection scope as per Defence point 15) and a wire underneath a floorboard also mentioned in the invoices, which would not have been seen by the Defendant (even if it were not potentially related to works carried out during the Claimants occupancy), the electrician makes no such statement in the emails supplied. The communication merely suggests that ‘major improvements’ are required without statement on the underlying cause, nor at which point these would have been first apparent. The Defendant contends that it is not unusual for 30 year old switchgear to develop faults especially if unmaintained and untested, and that furthermore it would be near impossible for any installation made under the 16th Edition Wiring Regulations to comply with the 18th Edition without similar major improvement.

The Defendant especially maintains that it is completely disproportionate to blame the very small (typically less than 1 amp) loads of fire and safety systems to contribute any kind of ‘stress’ to a typical domestic supply with a 80-100 amp main fuse provision, and that this statement is completely without merit.

Notwithstanding work was carried out by the Claimant’s electrician which may have had a high monetary value, there is nothing to suggest that this was not mostly of an improvement nature to voluntarily bring the installation up to the latest standards that, of course, were not extant in 2007 prior to the current 18th Edition. The exact same suggestion for major improvement would likely be made if the installation were in sound condition yet installed to the 15th edition, although the householder would be under no legal obligation to make the recommended improvements.

(viii). The estimates and invoices supplied by the Claimant’s electrician are exactly as stated; a collection of estimates and invoices some of which are wholly irrelevant to the claim, e.g. estimates and invoices for work related in entirety to the Claimant’s ongoing kitchen refurbishments. It is unclear how the Claimant has arrived at the sum of monies claimed.

15. It is specifically denied that the Defendant has ever been abusive towards the Claimant, but does not deny that when telephoned ad-hoc by the Claimant and asked without discussion to either attend the Claimant’s property and carry out unpaid work, or to ‘contribute’ towards the Claimant’s payments for electrical work, that when the Claimant continued to speak over the Defendant explaining his position, he was asked politely but firmly not to make any further contact with the Defendant.

16. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has no grounds upon which to request the sum of £2,181.42 (plus costs) from the Defendant and that the Claimant’s actions in bringing this claim have been unreasonable and vexatious. The Defendant feels that they have been unfairly implicated in an argument that, whilst tenuous, should have been between the Claimant and the Vendor from the outset. This claim has been at considerable cost to the Defendant’s time and expense. The Defendant respectfully asks the court to consider the costs put forward by the Defendant as a Litigant in Person.

[jaguarsuk]

A little verbose with some things that would go into a witness statement at a later date, here's a draft and let's see what other think. The formatting can be lost on here, so I have attached it correctly formatted in a word doc.

The Defendant received claim ref. 0123456 from the Northampton County Court Business Centre (Moneyclaim) by post on the 29/05/2019.

The Particulars of Claim are vague in both Cause of Action and under what statute or enactment remedy is sought.

On XX/XX/2019 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimants Statement of Case under Civil Procedure Rule (‘CPR’) 31.14 and the Claimant responded on XX/XX/2019.

The Claimants Statement of Case is now reproduced and marked ST1 with the particulars of claim broken into numbered paragraphs to allow the Defendant to plead to each allegation.

Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

Paragraph 1 is denied.

Paragraph 2 is admitted and that installation was entirely out of scope of both Part P and British Standard BS 7671, "Requirements for Electrical Installations. IET Wiring Regulations."


Paragraph 3 is denied and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Claimant be put to the strictest proof to evidence this allegation.

Paragraph 4 is denied,

the Defendant was once a member of a ‘Part P’ registration scheme not a full NICEIC member, which is entirely different in scope and nature. Now produced and marked ST2 is the Email between Claimant’s named electrician and Part P scheme administrator confirming Defendant’s former Part P registration.

Within the scope of being ‘Part P’ registered the Defendant was contracted by the owner of the property to produce a Periodic Inspection Report (‘PIR’) on the fixed electrical wiring and switchgear within the dwelling. This report specifically excluded hidden wires within the dwelling, and in this instance excluded the garage and outbuildings inclusive of a recommendation of a subsequent test in 2012. Now produced and marked ST3 is a copy of the PIR.

Paragraph 5 is admitted, the property as reported in the PIR was tested and met all regulations.

Paragraph 6 is denied, the emails between the Claimants electrician and the Claimant lack any specific narratives that quote Regulations or contain measurable data to back up the Claimant’s statements and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Claimant be put to the strictest proof to evidence this allegation. Now produced and marked ST4 are the emails between the Claimant and the Electrician he contracted.

Paragraph 7 is denied and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Claimant be put to the strictest proof to evidence this allegation.

Paragraph 8 is denied,

the emails between the Claimants electrician and the Claimant lack any specific narratives that quote Regulations or contain measurable data to back up the Claimant’s statements.

the Claimant should have conducted a five year inspection in 2012 as detailed in PIR, which by admission of the Claimant his Statement of Case within the timelines he did not and on the balance of probabilities the thermal stress is likely due to lack of maintenance, wear-and-tear, gradual failure through increased contact resistance of a near 30 year old item of switchgear, or possible overloading of the circuit by the household over the last 12 years than any act or omission on the part of the Defendant.

Had the Claimant conducted the subsequent inspection as recommended in the PIR (and any subsequently recommended inspections) it is averred by the Defendant that issues may have been detected at an earlier stage and any alleged losses to the Claimant mitigated, despite the Defendant’s views on liability.

Paragraph 9 is denied

the emails between the Claimants electrician and the Claimant lack any specific narratives that quote Regulations or contain measurable data to back up the Claimant’s statements.

The PIR specifically excluded hidden wires within the dwelling, and in this instance excluded the garage and outbuildings.

installation of fire, smoke or intruder alarms was entirely out of scope of both Part P and British Standard BS 7671, "Requirements for Electrical Installations. IET Wiring Regulations."

Paragraph 10 is neither admitted nor denied, but the Defendant avers that had the Claimant heeded the recommendation in the PIR to retest in 2012 he may have detected these at an earlier stage.

Paragraph 11 is denied save for, the Defendant was telephoned ad-hoc by the Claimant and asked without discussion to either attend the Claimant’s property to carry out unpaid work or to ‘contribute’ towards the Claimant’s payments for electrical work. During the telephone call the Claimant spoke over the Defendant whilst he was explaining his position and politely, but firmly asking the Claimant to make no further contact with the Defendant.

Paragraph 12 is admitted,

the Defendant has never entered into any contract with the Claimant for any goods or services, whether directly or by inference, at any time.

The Defendant is a 3rd party to an unrelated transaction involving the sale of property completed in 2008. Any alleged loss to the Claimant has arisen out of that contract between the Claimant and the Vendor for the sale of the property, and not from the Defendant, a person with no financial interest or agency in the sale of the property.

The claimant had been made aware of this by telephone and ought to have known that pursuing the course conduct he did amounted to harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.1(1).

The Claimant has not attempted to resolve this issue via the approved Part P redress scheme, but had he it states; (a) The complainant must be the customer, (b) Work must be less than 6 years old, and finally (c) Remedial work must not be carried out prior to inspection by an approved, independent party; noting the Claimant would fail these requirements at each stage.

The Defendant contends that any redress sought by the Claimant is statute barred by virtue of Limitation Act 1980 section 2 and/or section 5.

Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) “Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation.” Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

Should it be the case the Claimant produces further documents in attempt to substantiate his claim the Defendant respectfully requests leave to amend his Defence if required with the Claimant bearing any cost for such an amendment.

It is for the reasons stated in the defence that the Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to relief as claimed or at all.

This claim has been at considerable cost to the Defendant’s time and expense. The Defendant respectfully requests the court order that costs of and occasioned in dealing with it be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant as a Litigant in Person.

ST1.png

[swiss_toni]

Many thanks, I did think it went on a bit, but was reluctant to leave avenues open, though, good that we can add things in the WS if needed.

Just having a lunch break now but will work on that later.

I appreciate I haven't uploaded the 'evidence' but there really is sheafs of it and no smoking gun (as I knew, though was still slightly suprised how careful the electrician has been with his words. I do not now think the electrician is totally taking the p, but definately knows how to make the most out of a 'bad' situation. As I say if it were not for the fact the fuseboard was a 30 year old proprietary type and completely obsolete they might just have gotten away with a single new breaker and an hours work, plus the overdue testing and whatever other work was needed of course. I still maintain they could have still mitigated the losses even then, but that's not really the main defence is it).

Do I / should I need to add/reference the two Electrical Safety First guidance documents or can that also be left for a later WS?

Thanks again for all your help, I do hope you will accept an amazon voucher later on
Oh, and a site donation, obv's!

And, that's regardless of the outcome, obviously. But I hope I am not being unrealistic in thinking this guy is going to need a LOT of luck.

[swiss_toni]

No-one else has chimed in which is fine by me - I'm happy to send this briefer defence off with minor amendments.

But, my issue is that I'm off on holiday for a week from Friday (tomorrow). So, when I come back it will be Friday 28th.... Deadline 1600 1st July. Which is fine, but doesn't give much room for any issues like being unable to email the court etc...

I have never used the new style moneyclaim. Can you submit PDFs etc... (update - it seems not, directly online anyway, by separate email perhaps as previously...)

When I choose 'I deny the claim' all I get is a tiny box for text, stating;

"Briefly explain why you disagree with the claim

If you fail to dispute any part of the claim the court may assume you admit it.

You should also say if you accept any parts of the claim.

Don't give us a detailed timeline - we'll ask for that separately."

Should I just put something in the box such as 'Please refer to my full defence which I have emailed to the court on ....'

And apart from the marked up PoC, should this emailed defence at this stage contain scans of all his evidence referred to marked up by myself e.g. ST1 etc... There is 40 pages of it, so I assume anything not referred to in my defence doesn't have to be re-submitted.

Then you are forced to choose yes or no to mediation at this early stage. No answer, no submission possible.

And finally, is the plan to send off the strikeout by post the second the defence is submitted online??

TIA

ST

[jaguarsuk]

Yes mark it to see separate defence emailed to court.

Email it to them and yes anything referred to as produced and marked needs to be scanned, the appropriately marked with the correct reference. I know it’s a pain, but has to be done.

Once sent to the court by email if he has accepted service by email (if there’s an email address on the claim form) then email it to him. And if not then send it first class post, get the certificate of postage as it doesn’t have to be recorded or whatever.

Once you you have sent it to him fill in and file Form N215 (on my phone so can’t link, but google top result) to confirm to the court that you have served him.

[jaguarsuk]

And yes once the defence is submitted post the Strike Put application and if you email him the defence, POST a copy of the strike out application to him as you must file and serve on all parties.

[swiss_toni]

All done, let's see what happens next!

p.s

"You have rejected the claim. You’ve suggested mediation.

We’ll ask Mr CLAIMANT if they agree to take part in mediation.

If they say yes, we’ll arrange a date for mediation. If they say no we’ll send you a directions questionnaire - this is a form you complete to tell us more about the claim."

I felt I had to choose mediation, even though I didn't want to. There was no other way of proceeding
if you didn't choose yes or no...

Strikeout will be posted Monday, whilst I'm on holiday.

[jaguarsuk]

There’s a link in my signature that tells you about Directions W, but has a bit about mediation.

Hopefully the stike out will succeed and it need not ever get as far as mediation.

[swiss_toni]

So we sent off the strikeout on the 24th June, 1st class with proofs inc. a copy for the claimaint with the required form in the courts copy re. service on claimaint.

(edited)

Letter received this morning (9th July) stating case and request for summary judgement transferred to our local court, so going as well as it can I suppose

[jaguarsuk]

So we sent off the strikeout on the 24th June, 1st class with proofs inc. a copy for the claimaint with the required form in the courts copy re. service on claimaint.

(edited)

Letter received this morning (9th July) stating case and request for summary judgement transferred to our local court, so going as well as it can I suppose

That's exactly what should happen, it should go before a judge for directions and with any luck the judge will strike it out.

[swiss_toni]

So, in the post today...

I'm assuming this isn't all bad as the DJ has recognised the Claimaint has no clear cause of action. Annoying though that he is given almost a month to dream one up, which I suspect he will struggle with, and tell us all only 3 days before the hearing.

Having utilised all my leave (I am both self employed and work for the NHS) I've had to request an unpaid leave day for the 21st.

However, does this give me more of an opportunity to request Litigant in Person costs and loss of earnings whether it proceeds to a hearing or he fails to come up with a Cause of Action?

[jaguarsuk]

So, in the post today...

I'm assuming this isn't all bad as the DJ has recognised the Claimaint has no clear cause of action. Annoying though that he is given almost a month to dream one up, which I suspect he will struggle with, and tell us all only 3 days before the hearing.

Having utilised all my leave (I am both self employed and work for the NHS) I've had to request an unpaid leave day for the 21st.

However, does this give me more of an opportunity to request Litigant in Person costs and loss of earnings whether it proceeds to a hearing or he fails to come up with a Cause of Action?

This is good news, the court is recognising that he is talking rubbish and telling him as much. The question now is whether he can see the wood for the trees and file a Notice of discontinuance.

You need to get a letter from the employer ASAP detailing how much pay you will lose for that unpaid day, we'll send a copy to the court and claimant to ask for cost consideration in advance to further turn the screws on him a bit. I think he might actually file Notice of discontinuance purely on the basis of he won't know how to get out of the mess he's found himself in, won't want to pay for your day off and you'll be giving him direction of what he can do to make it all stop.

If you have to attend unpaid and he's not been able to evidence a cause of action you should get the day's pay ordered to be paid to you. The reason most don't is because they don't take unpaid leave and evidence it from their employer.

Don't forget that if the court doesn't return your application fee you'll be wanting that in wasted costs as well.

[swiss_toni]

Thanks for that, I did think it was pretty much a positive thing.

I've prepared a schedule of costs Costs - final, redacted.pdf - outside of the N244 fee which I'd hope is a given, unrealistic, or worth a punt given the utterly hopeless case?

HR are hot on the case with the letter, so perhaps I might get it this time next year

thanks again for your quick reply