Re: Please help. I am being sued through a court. How do I respond?
- From: Howie <to.reply.pls.see.sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:03:24 +0100
<snip>
I wonder if the OP quoted far too low a figure for the job
|and then looked for a way out. That might be an unjust supposition but it
|might also be in the judge's mind.
|
I understand that opinion and therefore the possibility. It might
be useful for me to explain what actually happened. I'll do so
here:
<snip>
|Assuming for the sake of argument that you cannot afford a solicitor, that
|means the claimant will very probably win. However the claimant might be
|worried about mounting legal costs if you don't actually have any money to
|satisfy judgment. It is very important to try to negotiate and see if the
|claimant would accept a reasonable settlement figure. Presumably this court
|summons didn't come totally out of the blue, and there were threatening
|letters first. That would have been the best time to negotiate.
There were certainly many items of correspondence. 300 plus, -
all emails. I have kept every one of them. It will take me days
to compile them into readable threads of what happened in each
accusatory area during the job.
Here is the basic story of the situation:
We quoted £78,000 (inc vat) for the work. We wrote our own
contract which in reality proved both parties intent to do - and
pay for the job. We wrote this ourselves because the architect
had offered to prepare a standard JCT building contract but did
not do so and the clients were desparate to begin the work. We
are not denying that we contracted to do a fixed amount of work
at a fixed price. The client provided the drawings, which were
innacurate in many areas. (NB: Since this dispute began, the
client has removed and retained all drawings and the written
specification and will not let us have sight of them, - despite
our numerous requests for copies).
The job was 40 miles from our normal (local) work area. However,
we costed this into the quote and had planned to reduce our
actual costs by ensuring that a full vehicle (6 workmen) would
travel to site each day. We ourselves were only planning to
attend once each week because we had designated one of our men as
site-manager and, crucially, the job had a supervising Architect,
- who was a friend of the client.
After we had started the work, we were informed that the client
had not resolved a dispute with the neighbour to allow us to
build the garage by erecting scaffolding on their garden and
allowing us access through it. We had been totally unaware of any
dispute but we said that we would try to work around this problem
if it could be resolved within the next four weeks. It wasn't
ever resolved, even though it can be proved that I personally, -
as a favour to the client, approached the neighbour in question
and attempted to resolve it on their behalf.
The architect certified only two payments before our client fell
out with him (for not arranging a party-wall act to allow the
garage element to continue). The supervising architect was
dismissed by our client. From this point onwards, we agreed, and
charged our own payments and unfortunately allowed the client
themselves to supervise the build and direct our workforce.
This left us with two problems:
1/ We had not been able to send 6 men to site each day because
they were (literally) falling over each other. Our original plan
had been to move workmen onto the garage element of the job as
each one finished their daily allocation of the main build.
Therefore, they would have been working much more efficiently.
So, not only were they unable to move onto a new part of the
build, we were also paying them to sit around, waiting for a
previous bit of work to be ready or simply waiting for enough
space for them to work on their specialised area again after
others had done their bit. We were effectively paying less men to
travel a larger distance and then sit around much more than usual
without the supervising architect to deal with it. Our fuel
costs, wages costs and timescale spiralled.
2/ We had not budgeted to personally attend the site more than
once per week. We simply could not afford to do so. Also, the job
was always planned and designed as a 'budget build'. At this
point, the client also increased the job costs hugely by choosing
to do such things as.. add specialised window ledges (not on the
drawing); fit a kitchen of a much greater size than on the
drawing; add dado and picture rails (not on drawing); use more
colours and specialised paints - requiring more coats and extra
worktime cutting-in, etc. We then had additional work in the form
of extras when we discovered (for example) that the existing roof
was not felted. Our men began to be used as collectors of many
additional items such as psecialist bathroom fittings and tiles.
Our vehicle was on the road, with one of our workmen in it many
times each week; and all on the whim and at the behest of the
client. Of course, we only found out about this from our men when
it was much too late for our wallets.
As you can imagine, all this cost us more time, and at a much
higher daily cost to us than ever expected, and this was in
addition to the cost of lower-than-planned numbers of personnel
on the job. In financial terms, it's amazing how these problems
compound; I estimate the actual additional costs of the situation
as it stood to be approx £1,500 per week, - and for double the
original job timescale. Therefore, looking back, the total
additional cost to us was in the region of £32,000.
We had said to the client at the time of them sacking the
supervising architect that we would all work together to TRY to
complete the build within the budget and timescale but that the
original contract was no longer applicable. Big mistake - and
very niaive because we did not get it in writing.
Eventually, when we had run out of money and also personally
spent over £10,000 more than they had paid us (at that point), we
were forced to call a halt and explain the problem. Not only was
ther no profit. We had already made a significant loss.
Even then, they asked if they could pay our men directly on a
daily basis and direct them to do the job! We agreed, as long as
was a private arrangement between them and nothing to do with us.
(They were all sub-contractors so we just released them from
working for us for this period). This appeared to be working
until they realised how much daily-rate work was costing them and
called a stop themselves. It was at this point that they reverted
to the original terms of our contract and began threatening legal
action if we did not fulfill our obligations. We did what we
could for another three weeks but we were then financially on our
knees, - and still are.
This episode has destroyed our partnership and resulted in the
above litigation.
We really do not have any financial resources to fight it.
I REALLY do appreciate any further advice that anyone here may be
able to offer.
Thank you all very much, - in advance, - yet again.
--
Pontins History E-Mail: usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Please visit www.pontinshistory.co.uk
Skype ID (instant messaging and video calls): howie10
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: What the fcuk???
- Next by Date: Re: Royal Mail - Law unto themselves
- Previous by thread: Re: Please help. I am being sued through a court. How do I respond?
- Next by thread: Re: Please help. I am being sued through a court. How do I respond?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
