On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:10:16 +0100, Ian Clowes
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:


His additional advice, if I was prepared to settle at the figure, was
to offer to settle at a figure just under £5000 (e.g. £4995), and to
pay the difference to reduce the outstanding balance to this figure.
The strategy behind this is that this is the break point where a claim
would be heard in the Small Claims Division rather than in full court.
Any solicitor will know this and it's virtually a coded message that
one understands the game.


Hi Andy

Just to clarify the aim here...

They still want money. Are you saying that since its under £5000 it will
only be heard in the SCD if they sue for it? I thought their solicitor
could ask for it to be heard in the full court?

IanC


IANAL, but as it was explained to me by someone who is, this is a
question of normal practice and costs.

Generally, small claims procedure is used for amounts under £5k, fast
track for £5k to £15k and multi-track above that. Details are on the
Court Service web site.

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/forms...forms/n150.pdf

The point is, that going for the fast track could be done, but would
have to be justified (not likely here) and would imply more costs.

Also, we should keep in mind the storyline from the OP. There seems
to be fairly clear indication that the installer has broken the law,
and remember that this is a criminal offence.

I had occasion to check an installer's registration with CORGI on
Friday. This particular person is employed and there is a CORGI
registration for his firm. He is registered under the firm's
registration and certified to do specific work. You can ask CORGI
whether an individual is certified to do X but they won't give a list
of a person's qualifications. Moreover, in the case of this type of
registration, the individual can only do work for the firm and
invoiced by the firm. He is not allowed to do work on the side -
that apparently requires an individual registration.
Either way, they can check by firm or by individual, and it does sound
as though the OP's installer falls outside of either category.

In the light of that, I wonder whether he would really want to involve
himself in the court system, albeit a civil action? I suppose that
the OP couldn't really hold that up as a reason not to pay since it is
tantamount to blackmail.

It seems that the scenario could result in the installer trying to
pursue "alternative means" of debt collection. If he did nothing,
which is probably unlikely it leaves the matter rather open ended.

Faced with this situation I think that I would do the following:

- I wouldn't accept the offer of "a mate" doing an inspection and
check.

- Get an independent and preferably expensive organisation like BG to
come and do an inspection and issue a certificate.

- Get an Institute of Plumbing registered plumber to check the
plumbing work and provide a report. Not that I set huge store by this
organisation but it's as good as it gets.

- Have the two contractors above carry out any remedial work required.

- Send payment to the original fitter less any and all costs from
above, with an accompanying letter saying that this is in full and
final settlement.

- Report the guy to CORGI. Not only does he appear to have done a
poor job, but he also appears to have committed a criminal offence and
to have borne false witness to try and cover that up.

Faced with that, I don't think that the guy would be very likely to
pursue a claim.

I suppose that one could go as far as to issue a claim for loss of
rent for having lost a potential tenant - whether that would stand up,
I don't know.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl