How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jamie-Law Your Own Question
Jamie-Law
Jamie-Law, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 7682
Experience:  Solicitor
96104960
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jamie-Law is online now

22/2/18 I'm ithe deefndant in a -running court case nvolving

This answer was rated:

22/2/18
I'm ithe deefndant in a long-running court case nvolving building work. The claimant RD) is claiming around £25,000 most of which is totally unjustifiable. Neither of us has a solicttor. I have received a completed Scott schedule from her which still contains her ridiculously inflated claims about which I am considering applying to the Court to have struck out. I have already warned her about this option. But I would like to ask about one item in particular which involves RD claiming around £3500 for roofing work to correct what she perceived as a defect but her highly qualified structural engineer said, in his written report, was acceptable although, in passing, he recommended that a gap of 25mm was left. He didn't give any explantion for recommending the gap although I can understand why he thought of it.. Without this gap her claim for this item would be zero. Even if she had been told she must have this gap there would be cheaper ways of doing the work which should be well under £1000.
There are similar items in her claim but more clearcut than this. By choosing the £3500 option there would be considerable betterment to her house and she would also avoid having to pay for roof repairs some time in the next couple of years.
My question is would either the £3500 or the >£1000 option be likely to succeed; if not can I apply to have this item struck out along with other more clear-cut ones?
Many thanks. Don Kiddle

Hello Don my name is ***** ***** I will help you.

What stage are proceeding? Have directions been given?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Hi Jamie, yes and there is a trial window of 16 april to 25 may. I need to file my response to the Scott schedule by 20/3 but I'm still debating whether to apply to have a number of items struck out before then. The directions also say that I have to submit my signed witness statement by 6 march. Don

Thanks. In reality, I would not. I would wait for trial and do it there.

For one there is a Court fee of £255 and will be a hearing.

Second, if there is an argument that any figure would be awarded, then you would NOT get a strikeout

So I would not bother. Let it go to trial and you have put C on notice.

Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?

If not I would appreciate a 5 star rating for my answer. If you need more help, you can ask follow up questions for free and I would be delighted to assist. Thanks!

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Hi Jamie, yes my feeling was not to apply to have that particular item struck out but would be grateful if you can clarify the position re the claimant going ahead with expensive roof works on the pretext of adopting a structural engineer's recommendation. After his having said that the existing situation was structurally acceptable, C had three options; to do nothing as the status quo was structurally OK or act on the Engineer's recommendation and adopt the simplest and by far the cheapest option which would not result in any betterment or to take the most expensive option which would save her at least £2500 because she would have to have her roof overhauled within a couple of years. This option almost amounts to fraud in my opinion. C's tactic so far has been to claim for so many unjustifiable items for which she has scant supporting evidence as a deliberate (possibly, just misguided) way to bully me into settling for a reduced but still substantial sum. At the meditation meeting she offered to settle at £15k when she was claiming £26k and recently offered to settle at £18k.
Thanks, ***** *****

If the engineering does not recommend it, then I dont think she can win on that put.

In any event even if the Judge found against you, it comes down to mitigation,

It was not reasonable to get those works done.

But unless the expert says she needed that gap, then you dont.

As you say, would be nice. But then it would be nice to have a new BMW every 6 months.

Does that clarify?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry to press the point but because the engineer's recommendation is just that whereas his detailed structural investigations conclusively showed that no remedial action was necessary, would any work undertaken by C in relation to this point be justifiably claimable against me?

No.

Does that assist?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
thank you. Your final answer applies to a number of other of other items C has claimed but the 'No' answer is more obvious in those case!
Thanks for you help.
Don Kiddle

All the best Don. If this answers your question could I invite you to rate my answer, 5 stars the happy face on the page before you go today, otherwise the site doesn’t pay me for the time spent with you. Thanks in advance!

Jamie-Law and 3 other Law Specialists are ready to help you