Re: Neighbour from HELL
Regarding the photos:
The problem comes from my viewpoint that I am having the problem described by a third party (you!) and not the defendant.
It is clearly stated the claimant has not sent photos to defendant so whose photos did your brother view (which showed no contact between car and trampoline) and whose photos did you view (which showed possible contact)?defendant
To me your view and your brother's are possibly contradictory.
One other concern I have is the comment in the particulars of claim "an email back to me said there was no reason why it could not stay,although it was not tied down.".
Why would the council official write (if she did) the trampoline was not tied down, when your brother says it was?
Do you know when the inspection took place?
Could it be that the pegs were put in place following her visit?
Somewhere in this thread it was said the photos (which phots/) clearly showed the pegs.
As your brother is denying liability there is no point in arguing about minimising losses, but it might be worth adding to para 12 "and puts the claimant to strict proof"
Regarding the photos:
The problem comes from my viewpoint that I am having the problem described by a third party (you!) and not the defendant.
It is clearly stated the claimant has not sent photos to defendant so whose photos did your brother view (which showed no contact between car and trampoline) and whose photos did you view (which showed possible contact)?defendant
To me your view and your brother's are possibly contradictory.
One other concern I have is the comment in the particulars of claim "an email back to me said there was no reason why it could not stay,although it was not tied down.".
Why would the council official write (if she did) the trampoline was not tied down, when your brother says it was?
Do you know when the inspection took place?
Could it be that the pegs were put in place following her visit?
Somewhere in this thread it was said the photos (which phots/) clearly showed the pegs.
As your brother is denying liability there is no point in arguing about minimising losses, but it might be worth adding to para 12 "and puts the claimant to strict proof"
Comment