DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44435--------------------------------------------------
Court claim for alleged damage
By: oscar21 Date: November 7, 2024, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just like busses, they all come at once. I already have a court
claim regarding a private parking ticket on the go at the moment
and I'm dealing with this one as well.
Basically I was doing some work on the outside of a building as
part of my job, I was under the instruction of the building
tenant and I was fitting something to the outside of it. The
building is a commercial unit and as I was driving a screw home
it went through a gas pipe on the inside of the wall, basically
it was in the cavity of the wall, as the pipe was before the
meter we had to call Cadent out to repair it. They have since
issued an invoice for the damage cause for about £800 which I
didn't pay and they have now taken it to court.
I did put a defence in and its now time for the DQ part, the bit
I'm stuck on is a reason for having the hearing in person.
The scenario is the pipe was completely hidden inside the wall,
its a double skinned metal wall full of insulation. There was no
way of knowing there was a gas pipe inside the wall and on every
other unit on the estate any gas pipe supplies are on the
outside. Even the grid in the tarmac marked "G" didn't have
anything inside it apart from soil. I also knew for a fact that
the building wasn't supplied by gas as I fitted all the electric
heaters and electric water heater to it a few months ago.
When the first guy from Cadent showed up he reckoned we wouldn't
be liable and it was just one of those things but later on when
one of their managers showed up he said the exact opposite (I
had left site by then, the owner of the building reckoned he was
a bit of an idiot really) My defence was based on the fact that
I wasn't negligent in any way so wasn't liable for the bill at
all.
The also have my name wrong on the court papers despite filling
it in correctly on like, my name is "Joe Bloggs trading as JB
Electrical but they have it as Joe Floggs trading as JF
Electrical (not real). Does that make any difference?
This is what I wrote for my defence. I thought they might drop
things at this stage,
"In reference to the claim against me although damage occurred
to
Cadents pipework, no negligence was involved. The pipework was
completely hidden from view inside a metal wall which I was
instructed to fasten a vehicle charger to.
There was no way to know any sort of pipework was inside the
wall,
especially as the building didn't even have a gas connection
present. Also on every other building on the same estate the
pipework was external to the building where you could quite
clearly see it, another reason to assume there was nothing
there.
As for the claim for the damage, Cadent didn't even repair the
damaged pipework, they just cut the supply off in the ground
outside the building as the supply was not needed, I don't
believe
they normally charge for this service if a supply isn't needed
anymore.
I also checked the various grids for the gas stop-tap outside
the
building and couldn't find one, yet another reason to assume
there
wasn't any gas supply present to the building.
I was also working under instruction from the building owner or
tenant who specifically stated the position he wanted the
charger,
maybe the claim should be against that person and not me.
Lastly I wish to reiterate that for this claim to be successful
there needs to be negligence on the part of myself and for the
various reasons stated above I don't believe there is and on
that
basis I ask that the claim is struck out."
#Post#: 44440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: mickR Date: November 7, 2024, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was regulation now that gas pipes HAD to be run on
the outside of buildings until an entry point closest to the
internal appliance
#Post#: 44441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: andy_foster Date: November 7, 2024, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If the building owner was suing you for negligence, then I would
say that you have pretty much nailed the defence.
However, reading between the lines, you are being sued by a
service provider that you contracted (albeit informally) to
provide a service, and refused to pay.
Perhaps we could start with the particulars of claim, etc.?
#Post#: 44444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: oscar21 Date: November 7, 2024, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=mickR link=topic=3788.msg44440#msg44440
date=1731007998]
I thought it was regulation now that gas pipes HAD to be run on
the outside of buildings until an entry point closest to the
internal appliance
[/quote]
They certainly do on residential buildings, not sure about
commercial, but when we removed the cladding (cladding was fixed
and shouldn't really be removeable but it was an emergency) it
was the same gas pipe as what was external on the other units
but it had been cladded over for some reason, making it
invisible. It is the sort of pipe you see externally all over
the country, it has a square tap on the top that is used as an
emergency cutoff. like this.
[img width=153
height=181]
HTML https://thumbsnap.com/i/tfYQMtqC.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 44445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: oscar21 Date: November 7, 2024, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=3788.msg44441#msg44441
date=1731008275]
If the building owner was suing you for negligence, then I would
say that you have pretty much nailed the defence.
However, reading between the lines, you are being sued by a
service provider that you contracted (albeit informally) to
provide a service, and refused to pay.
Perhaps we could start with the particulars of claim, etc.?
[/quote]
Thanks for the relies, This is a copy of the claim, they are
definitely suing for negligence.
[img width=1100
height=825]
HTML https://thumbsnap.com/i/hP3J5Uv8.jpg[/img]
#Post#: 44448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: mickR Date: November 7, 2024, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
what does their invoice say? can you post it up.
#Post#: 44476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: andy_foster Date: November 7, 2024, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And this "full details of the negligence" which "have been
provided"?
#Post#: 44509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: oscar21 Date: November 8, 2024, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=3788.msg44476#msg44476
date=1731016921]
And this "full details of the negligence" which "have been
provided"?
[/quote]
The claim form is the only thing that came in the bundle, I have
previously been sent a couple of pictures by cadent along with
their invoice but they just showed a pipe with a small hole in
it with the wall cladding removed, which I took off myself.
The claim form comes from the court though, wouldn't that be the
only thing the court sent me even if cadent have sent copies of
the pictures to the court, I'm not sure how it works. Does the
court send everything they get to me?
As for my original question though, how can I word the bit where
you ask for a physical hearing as opposed to "doing it on the
papers", if indeed that is the right way to go about it. The DQ
has to be in by the end of today.
Thanks
#Post#: 44519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: mickR Date: November 8, 2024, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
wheres the invoice we asked for??
we have no idea what work they are claiming to have done. you
said they just "cut off the supply" if do they didn't do any
repair work????
are you saying they haven't provided "full details of
negligence"??
#Post#: 44541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim for alleged damage
By: oscar21 Date: November 8, 2024, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't got access to the invoice and pictures until Monday,
they are at the office and I've been working away all week, I
might be able to get someone to go down in a bit and get a
copy. I know I should have got on top of this earlier but I've
just been so busy work wise, regardless I need to file the N180
document today.
The invoice was mainly for site visits by their staff to
initially come out and do a safety check and also for digging
the hole and filling it in again. I don't think they invoiced
for a repair as they obviously didn't repair anything.
What they did do after I phoned them was send a guy out just to
assess the situation and make sure nothing was going to blow up,
I actually stopped the leak by screwing the screw back into the
pipe which sealed it so the actual leak was minimal. He then
reported back to his manager and they sent a team out to dig the
car park up and cap off the supply in the street. They then
returned a week or so later and filled the hole back in. This is
what they are charging for.
Apparently there was still a gas meter on the inside of the
building in a cupboard on the other side of the wall but nothing
was attached to the outgoing side as it was an all electric
setup. This meter has now been removed by cadent when they
diconnected it.
Shouldn't they have supplied invoice and picutre copies with the
defence bundle though.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page