Mediation
Wolverhampton

This Claimant (C) who was represented by Clarkes LLP brought an action against the Defendant (D) builder, who acted as a Litigant in Person and sought to defend and counterclaim against the claim made against him.

In summary; proceedings were issued for the sum of £31,777.66 being the estimated amount the C was due to incur as a result of the D failing to complete building works, and because (some of) the work which was carried out was alleged by the C to be substandard.

As the D initially ignored the Claim in its entirety, Judgment was obtained in May 2017. It was not until the day of enforcement of the Judgment, by High Court Officers, in July 2017, that the D made an application to set the Judgment aside and Defend the Claim. This Application was granted by the District Judge in August 2017. (This was following an adjournment of the initial hearing before a Deputy District Judge).

Following this, the D submitted an array of documents, all of which outlined his opinion of the Claim. Upon receiving what D purported to his Defence and Counterclaim Clarkes LLP requested a directions hearing alleging that that the Defence & Counterclaim was not compliant. Before a District Judge in October 2017, the Court was satisfied that the documents filed by the D did not comply with the CPR and ordered the D do file a Defence which complies with CPR 1998 Part 15 and Part 16 by January 2018.

Following the D’s Defence and Counterclaim, in April 2018 the C filed a Defence to the Counterclaim disputing the entirety of the D’s Claim for alleged ‘Extras’ which he said he had not been paid for.

The matter was then listed for a Costs and Case Management Conference which was due to take place in October 2018. It was listed for 2.5 hours at the Wolverhampton County Court.

The C says that she paid the D the total sum of £51,500.00 over a very short period of time, in order that he could get on with renovation and building works to her property. The D walked off the job before completing the Contract. The C is at a loss as to where the entirety of the £51,500.00 has been spent.

The C understands that some work has been done, however has never received a breakdown of what the £51,500.00 paid has actually gone towards.

The C has been left in a position where she has had to pay other builders to finish parts of the work, and some of the work carried out by the D was substandard and needed to be rectified, this is all at a cost to the C.

The C was going to rely upon the report of a Charted Building Surveyor, who concluded that (page 18 of the report) “Significant defects and shortcomings are identified in the works undertaken by the Contractor” and “in my opinion, XXX failed in their fundamental duty as both designer and contractor to obtain Building Consent”. He went on to state that at the very minimum, the C will have to pay £6,930.00 for further investigation and some remedial works. It was important to note however that upon further investigation, it is likely further remedial works would be required.

The D denied owing any monies to the C or that his work was substandard. He further counterclaimed against the C that; she owes him monies following carrying out “Extra Work”, of which he had valued at £35,695.00 pursuant to his own Scott Schedule.

The entirety of the Counterclaim was disputed by the C, who had no offers at all in respect of the Counterclaim. The D’s Counterclaim was so farcical it included the sum of £3,150.00 which he described as Solicitors Fees. In fact, these are costs that the D was ordered to pay the C following the determination of the D’s application to set aside the Judgment obtained against him. The mediation was in person and took four hours.

Being updated. 

The Defendants carried on business as farmers and asked the Claimant to quote for some remedial works to their farm buildings. The Quotation was for the total sum of £109,750.00 plus Vat.

The Defendants accepted the Quotation provided by the Claimant and subsequently obtained an 80% grant from DEFRA to carry out the renovation works. In addition to the quotation, DEFRA  approved additional works replacing rotten purlins and the repair of 2 trusses in the total sum of £8,500.00.

The Claimant’s claim related to alleged additional extra works to the farm buildings. The Defendants denied that the Claimant was entitled to any further payments and alleged that the only agreed additional works were as set out in the Defence namely.

The replacement of rotten purlins and the repair of 2 trusses. This work was approved by DEFRA and an extra £8,500.00 for the costs was included in the Approved Schedule of Works. The Claimant had received payment for these works.

Box truffing the Defendants paid to the Claimant an additional £250.00. The air holes, the Claimant received an additional £1,500.00 for these works. Granary stairs the Defendants paid the sum of £250.00 for these works. The mediation took place in person, took four hours and settled. Read the testimonial here.

Being updated. 

The claimant (C) completed work on several of the defendant’s (D) new home construction sites. They supplied the C with elegant, specially made interior kitchen and bathroom fixtures, to be placed in various of the new houses. Then, a year-long disagreement began when they refused to pay C’s last invoice.

Since June 2017, the C has made an effort to actively negotiate with the D’s, but regrettably, they have not been successful in reaching a consensus. Because of this, the D’s counterclaimed, putting the sum of £80,000 in doubt, when the C filed their claim.

This dispute was mediated in person. After three hours, a solution was found. Read the testimonial.  

Being updated. 

This mediation concerned a dispute between a builder and the extensive works he had done on a residential property. The value in dispute was some £60,000. It was alleged the works were extremely defective.

Communications broke down, and the builder left site. The resident and his family were left without essential utilities, such as hot water for a long period of time. Having to get the work rectified through another builder.

The claimant and defendant were related and also knew one another through their social and religious community. This not only complicated, but compounded matters, as other persons from their family and community got involved, when they did not need to.  The matter was resolved in less than three hours, the dispute has been going on for years. Click here to read the testimonial.