I am busy drafting my defence and counterclaim to a MCOL made by my "ex" builder's solicitor. The sum involved including costs is just under £1.8k (the balance of my offer to settle). As the claim relates to an outstanding sum for building work, which pre-action protocol applies - for construction and engineering disputes or for debt claims?
The letter before action that I was sent was not titled as such and gave no date to respond by (even though I did respond in good time by recorded mail). There was no breakdown included and the additional information that I requested in my reply in relation to fees and interest has not been responded to. All requests for meetings to discuss the situation have been refused and my suggestions for ADR through FMB or mediation have either been refused or ignored.
I have in mind to make a general comment in my defence with regards to pre-action protocol but I don't want to use the incorrect protocol as my reference point and make things worse for myself.
To give a small bit of background to the case, the builder walked off site when I asked to meet with him to discuss spiralling costs, ever extending timescales, errors and defects before settling the latest invoice. All previous weekly invoices had been settled within 7 days. At the time of his departure, the work was incomplete, defects had not been rectified and building control sign off had not been achieved. Goods and tools paid for in full were either not delivered, were incorrect or removed from the property. I had to arrange for specialist trades to complete certain works at extra cost to myself as he couldn’t get the trades arranged. He has had already been paid the full price of the estimated works + nearly 50% more and I am out of pocket to the tune of several thousands. It has been a nightmare situation that I have tried everything I can to settle out of court and just move on but over a year down the line the situation has reached the stage of a MCOL.
Any advice anyone can give with regards to the correct protocol would be much appreciated. I am not planning on making a big thing about adherence in my defence but do want to make a general comment so that I can expand upon it once the matter comes to hearing.
The letter before action that I was sent was not titled as such and gave no date to respond by (even though I did respond in good time by recorded mail). There was no breakdown included and the additional information that I requested in my reply in relation to fees and interest has not been responded to. All requests for meetings to discuss the situation have been refused and my suggestions for ADR through FMB or mediation have either been refused or ignored.
I have in mind to make a general comment in my defence with regards to pre-action protocol but I don't want to use the incorrect protocol as my reference point and make things worse for myself.
To give a small bit of background to the case, the builder walked off site when I asked to meet with him to discuss spiralling costs, ever extending timescales, errors and defects before settling the latest invoice. All previous weekly invoices had been settled within 7 days. At the time of his departure, the work was incomplete, defects had not been rectified and building control sign off had not been achieved. Goods and tools paid for in full were either not delivered, were incorrect or removed from the property. I had to arrange for specialist trades to complete certain works at extra cost to myself as he couldn’t get the trades arranged. He has had already been paid the full price of the estimated works + nearly 50% more and I am out of pocket to the tune of several thousands. It has been a nightmare situation that I have tried everything I can to settle out of court and just move on but over a year down the line the situation has reached the stage of a MCOL.
Any advice anyone can give with regards to the correct protocol would be much appreciated. I am not planning on making a big thing about adherence in my defence but do want to make a general comment so that I can expand upon it once the matter comes to hearing.
Comment