Party wall dispute, advice pls!!!!!

shays_mum

jonnyb1978 wrote: »

I meant letter to the surveyors not neighbours. I dont understand why are they contacting you for money if they are after the builders? Therefore your involvement should be minimal.....we seem to be going round in circles now!!

PW are after me as the legal builder owner, they want a new set of fees for this new situation £880!!!!. They want me to claim from the builders, but the insurance won't deal with anyone but the neighbour who is claiming the damage.

So in a way its a circle, but i am the only who has done nothing wrong & is being pulled between PW idiots & the builders insurers.

mart.vader

shays_mum wrote: »

Funny you just posted keystone, just came across this!, thanks though am going to call them asap
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/mar/14/home-extensions-plans-party-wall

Hi, I read the Guardian link. The surveyors they quote haven't given the full picture, as they wouldn't, as they're PWS's . Parts of this could work in your favour.

e.g. ". . . .explains Justin Burns from surveyors Peter Barry. "Surveyors have no scope to award damages for non-quantifiable things such as stress and inconvenience, unlike the courts, so costs would typically be much lower.""

As KS says "inconvenience is not quantifiable." True, and IME courts don't allow costs for this either.

Like some others, I doubt that paint splashes are within the PWA, even when they occurred while a PW award was in place.

If this were to go to court, and you were to show photos of the neighbours car and the space that she has to park, but chose to park where there was a probability of getting splashed, that seems to be a case of "contributory negligence". Put this to your legal team (if they haven't already thought of this)

How far is your extension away from completion ? As you've realised, the surveyor is only there to make fees for himself by stoking up dissent between you and next-door.

shays_mum

The contractors settled at the last minute *sigh of relief*!.

The solicitors have still to step in, even though this has been going on for weeks, they are useless & i am going to get my money back for their useless fees.

Thanks to all of you for your help/advice x

Leif

Glad to hear it worked out.

I missed the post from cyclonebri1 the first time round.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And you asking me if I'm a lawyer isn't a pop.

I only "correct you" when I think you have it wrong, and it that case it's not a correction it's as I said, my opinion.

Asking you if you are a lawyer is to find out whether or not there is any value to your 'correction', or if it is no more than a guess plucked out of thin air.

I said: "So perhaps it could be argued that they were liable for the damage.".

It is quite clear that the above is no more than a suggestion, and not a statement of fact. To find out the truth the OP would need legal advice. So maybe you should learn to read. And since you have no legal training, your 'correction' has no value.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Ok, so here is a quote from #22 you quoted at me

"My home insurance legal team feel she is negligent for parking where she did despite having a massive drive & may counter claim for MY emotional distress as she has given us problems from day 1. I have just found out her son was extremely vile to the builders, threatening them etc for ages as well."

Right, without trying to be a "know it all", do you know what these people are all about?

Well I do, they are a bunch of ambulance chasers that are little better than the one the OP is having problems with through the neighbour.

Yes, they are your legal people in so much as you have paid an additional premium of insurance to have access to them, and that is about as far as it goes. They are great for advice, but and this is a big but, they pay your and every other insurer a premium which in effect directs potential claims their way and that is what they are in it for, themselves not for you.

As I said claim and counter claim if that's what the OP wants then fine.

Supposition and more supposition. Basically the above is no more than waffle. Neither of us knows who the OP spoke to or the validity of the advice.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Oh, yes I did offer to pm you with I more detailed explanation of what I'd posted, but then I thought if you are so sensitive I'll not bother. I won't be tempted to suggest a more appropriate username for your self, it again might upset you.

On one occasion you said "PM sent chap", which confused me, as no pm was sent. On another occasion you said you were going to PM me, but you didn't. Please don't say you will PM me and then not do so. It is confusing.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You know a few month back I corrected KS for called you a prat or similar, I said he was wrong, he wasn't.

I have no recollection of abuse from KS, but in response to your insult, you are a jerk.

cyclonebri1

Do likewise and stop being so mardy, I took you as a genuine person who had mis-understood what I said, hence a pm to explain, sorry if you were terminally disappointed you didn't get them.

And lets get this straight please.
My posts in this thread that you took exception to were purely to defuse and avoid litigation and argument, I didn't want my views to form part of neighbours war.

This thread wasn't about party walls, not even about neighbours, but it was about the morally corrupt leeches that don't care who the provide their services too as long as they get their cut.
And I do include the legal protection service that many of us pay into as part of our own home insurance.

Leif

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

My posts in this thread that you took exception to were purely to defuse and avoid litigation and argument, I didn't want my views to form part of neighbours war.

I took exception to one post here, which argued with me for no purpose. I would have ignored it but it is just one of many pointless argumentative 'corrections' to my posts and it has got annoying. Don't you have something better to do?

cyclonebri1

If you take it as an argument when someone posts an opposite view then I can't help you, if you want to point out what offended you enough to go off on 1, well....

You might also notice that the situation resolved it's self in a manner that didn't end up as a legal tit for tat, something I tried to point out but you simply wouldn't accept, no wrong word, consider.

Oh, I see you have edited out your abusive post 75, 1st wise thing you've done in this thread..

Obviously KS is keeping his head down re calling you a p**t, but I remember things like that, and from establishes posters like yourself it isn't necessary.

And if that upsets you, you want to think back.


Opinions and views, Leif, and amongst the aninimity of the net, no one can be sure by what qualification "advice" is given.

Advice suggests being correct, views and options leaves it for the OP to decide.

Only when safety comes into the equation should it get stronger.

We differed, leave it there or carry on' your choice. I won't answer again unless the abuse re-emerges.

keystone

Leif wrote: »

I have no recollection of abuse from KS..........

Neither do I as it happens.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Obviously KS is keeping his head down re calling you a p**t, but I remember things like that,

Well quite obviously (to me anyway) I'm not as a) I've been rather busy working and b) I've been munching at the popcorn whilst you two have been at it.

Please don't drag me into this.



Cheers

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

Neither do I as it happens.

Well quite obviously (to me anyway) I'm not as a) I've been rather busy working and b) I've been munching at the popcorn whilst you two have been at it.

Please don't drag me into this.



Cheers

No, I didn't really want to mention it, I just thought you would recall your out of character outburst at Leif that's all, and that's the only reason I mentioned it.

Leif, you need to read the 1st couple of pages of this thread and then ask yourself where the insults Ist came from,

Secondly, and it will be later, I will pm you in a polite manner to resolve this issue, I for 1 don't want grievances carried over to other threads.

We are, I think both sensible established posters on here, this doesn't do anyone any good apart from the popcorn munchers.

Provided of course I have your assurance, (and it's a 2 way thing), that nothing else PM'd between us gets quoted up here?