Some of you will know and remember the never ending saga of the statutory notice on my flat. 3 yrs on, two contractors that have gone bust and loads of damage to my flat it is reaching the point where I may have to sue the council to get any satisfaction.

Now on my flat the problem is the damage is greater than the limit for small claims court if looked at in total, but there are 3 or 4 different issues each of which would be under the limit. Can you use small claims for 3 related but separate issues?

One would be damaged bathroom walls and tilework, one would be water leaks and décor damage, one would be damage to the roof and window frames. Obviously if I can do small claims its much cheaper and easier for me to do. There is about £15 – 20 000 worth of damage.

today I have written recorded delivery to the head of dept as his minions are not answering me, next step is obviously formal complaint however I see court as the only answer.

Ta folks

Go on, I'll say it – join a union! 😉

Can you use small claims for 3 related but separate issues?

Short answer – no. If all the claims arise from a singular factual matrix (which I am assuming – haven't followed the saga, sorry!) which I presume is lack of maintenance by the council, then the court would be likely to amalgamate the proceedings even if they were all issued separately, which would bring them onto the Fast Track.

Do you own the flat, or is it rented? If the latter, then you may be able to pursue them via a housing disrepair claim. Be aware that there is a specific Pre-Action Protocol relating to housing disrepair claims that needs to be complied with before issuing.

Are you a council/housing association tenant? Or is it a private landlord?

TJ – did you ever contact the specialist that I introduced you to?

Hang on TJ asking for Legal Advice??

Surely not… 🙄

So 2 of the builders have gone bust, so they have no assets to sue, so what has the council got to do with it.

15 to 20k seems like a lot of damage to a flat.

Ever thought about seeing a union as a first step. 😀

Jakester TJ is in Scotland.

TJ I think you can run the claims separately if they don't arise from the same incident, although the court might want to conjoin them, I'm not sure it could force you to. I'll have a wee look shall I?

aP – I tried but got no answer – however I may try again as I will need a report from an architect at some point.

Jakester

I am an owner occupier. The flat is in a listed building and the council are organising repairs under statutory notice and its gone badly wrong.

£1 000 000 + contract, builders going bust twice, lack of supervision leading to damage, appointed architect to supervise who is floundering out of his depth, no communication from the council.

Significant internal and external damage to my flat. The damage comes from different incidents / issues but all arises as a part of the works the council instigated. For example when they dismantled the chimney stack they damaged my bathrooms wall and tiles fell off. The windows – they appointed someone to paint them who made a bad job of it and damaged the frames – that sort of thing.

It would be much easier for me to use small claims 3 or 4 times than it would be to sue once for a larger sum

Al – yes plaese if its reasonably easy

Project – the council are organising the repairs under statutory notice.

The damage – the entire flat needs to be redecorated ( water penetration in every room), 2 walls need to be stripped and replasterd, bathroom needs to retiled, window frame ( wooden sash and case) needs to be replace, 5 X velux windows need to have the flashings replaced , cupola on the roof needs to be removed and remounted level, roof hatch needs to be replaced with one that fits, 2 large window frames need to be stripped to bare wood, repainted and repaired, guttering needs to be removed and remounted in two places as it leaks, some pointing needs to be redone etc etc

Ah, I know nothing about Scotchingland and their arcane legal processes, sorry.

If the damage is from separate incidents then I THINK you'd be OK, but you might also face a motion from the other side to conjoin the actions, and you might well **** off a Sheriff for not doing so in the first place.

You need to seriously consider this though – do you have qa right of redress against the Council? If it was the contractors that ****ed up then Shirley your claim begins and ends there…unless they were insured and cover might be in place?

Presume you've covered the insurance position? (i.e. your own policy)

Al

Its all horribly complex

My insurance is unhelpfull.

the council claim that the insurance the contractors carries is of no use, my solicitor says the council should be holding insurance certificates for the contractors that remains valid even after they go bust. The council want to add the cost of the repairs to the contract FFS. So the council institute repairs under statutory notice, the architect they appoint instigates significant works that are not needed and are in breach of listing buildings / planning. Teh extended works do damage and I have to pay for the repairs to correc this damage – and they have fecked up the insurance!!!!!!!

Its all horribly complex. Teh council will have some duty of care as they appointed the contractors and the architect. some of the damage is directly the fault of those supposed to be supervising the contract

Really I was hoping that the threat of being sued for £20 000 might make them pay up.

TJ sounds an absolute nightmare, whats statutory duty mean, they or you are responsible for repairs and the costs.

Statutory notice.

They decide the building needs repairs and tell the owners. if the owners don't organise it the council do and then bill you.

As we have two flats in the building I will end up with a bill for £150 000 +. I then will have to sue the other owners for some of that back as the council only charge equal shares but our deeds have a different split.

We will get some grant from historic Scotland as it is an important building.

There will probably end up with 3 different court cases. 14 owners V one to sot out the split. 15 owners against the council for **** up the main part of the works and the insurance and me against the council for the internal damage to my flat. I will also be making a formal complaint against The architect to his licensing body

its been going on for 3 yrs the actual works – 5 yrs since the notice was served.

I have already had to get historic Scotland and the listed building people involved as the architect wanted to make external changes ( putting single pane UPVC windows on instead of lantern light cupolas) – I got it done properly as a result and 8 places he didn't apply for listed building consent when he should have done. I have also had to get HSE involved as chimney stacks were left unsafe with combustion products potentially entering my flat.

TandemJeremy – Member
the council claim that the insurance the contractors carries is of no use

Why do they say this? Have you got the details of the contractor's insurers? (This I know about!)

Jakester – they say that a claim against the contractors insurance would be paid into the pool of creditors not to us. Therefore its not worth claiming as the settlement to creditors will be pennies in the £ and other debtors get theirs first

I think they have this wrong and didn't check the insurance was in place. My solicitor says this simply is wrong. its a part of where they have failed in their duty of care I believe

I haven't got details of the contractors insurance.

Why have your insurers refused cover? That would be my first Q.

I'd also be looking to see why "the council claim that the insurance the contractors carries is of no use". There are ways of claiming against insurance companies as a third party (as Jakester is perhaps alluding to). I've never had to do this tho.

It would not surprise me if everyone is trying to fob you off in the hope you will suck up the loss. Unfortunately as a party litigant solicitors will expect you to be a loony so you MUST get the law right.

My insurance does not cover accidental damage done by workmen and they say I should have claimed for each indecent at the time anyway. Again I think more could be made of this but I'd rather not make a claim on my insurance.

What do you mean

will expect you to be a loony so you MUST get the law right.

? Do you think they read STW?

I will get further and proper advise – but my solicitor is not a court solicitor and has referred me elsewhere

Folk that sue without instructing solicitors (party litigants) are often loonies! I speak from experience of acting for insurers and defending such claims. Even where they have a claim they often get it wrong. This is looking like it could get complex.

Its why I'd rather do small claims so as to look less like a loony!

If I can't do small claims I will use a solicitor and will make sure the case is decent before I do

Really I am hoping to scare them into settling out of court.

I know I'll regret saying this, but, asking the consultants for details of their PII cover usually results in movement.

Really I am hoping to scare them into settling out of court.

You need to have a good claim in order to do so – if you do and other parties may have blame then the Council may convene them to the action as third parties.

consultant – you mean the architect? He is the bod in charge of the project. PII – public Immunity Insurance?

The architect hates me by now anyway and is deliberately doing things to annoy me – because I have made him change his plans by getting heritage Scotland to tell him his proposals were unacceptable.

He has a SAAB and a lip beard. He is a Kahnt

TandemJeremy – Member
Jakester – they say that a claim against the contractors insurance would be paid into the pool of creditors not to us. Therefore its not worth claiming as the settlement to creditors will be pennies in the £ and other debtors get theirs first

I think they have this wrong and didn't check the insurance was in place. My solicitor says this simply is wrong. its a part of where they have failed in their duty of care I believe

I haven't got details of the contractors insurance.

I don't think this is right at all.

In England and Wales, if there is a claim against an insolvent contractor (who had the benefit of public liability insurance cover and who would, at the time the insured peril arose, have complied with policy conditions etc) then that claim may be brought directly against the insurance company under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930.

I would have thought there would be an analogue in Scottish law.

PII – professional indemnity insurance.

I am sure you are right Jakester – its the council chap who is an architect and the appointed architect that have told me this.

Tehy are numpties. Ta edit – just googled it and it does apply in Scotland – ta again

Al – the contractors no longer exist – only the architect could be liable

Aha – s4 of the TP(RAI) Act confirms it applies to Scotland.

TJ – just because the contractors no longer exist, that doesn't mean you can't pursue their insurers. Try contacting the administrator/insolvency practitioner of the contractor who should give you the insurers' details.

jakester – that is really helpful. Trouble is I have no contractual arrangement with the contractors – the council do. maybe I can go after the insurers as a individual.

anyway you have given me more ammunition to go after the council for.

Jakester has it!

I'll just say again – ta muchly! You have made my day.

Glad to be of service.

That'll be eleventy-bajillion pounds please. 😉

A slight cautionary note – if the contractors haven't complied with their obligations under the policy (and if they're the type to end up insolvent in the first place it's likely) then insurers may not have to pay out.

Jakester – if I get my money and don't have to have another set of council appointed numpties "repairing" my flat as a result of your infor there might be something it it for you ( and you Al)

I understand its not that clear – especially as some of the damage might have been unavoidable therefore not insurances issue and some of it might be from poor instruction / supervision.

Both contractors ( and they both have done damage) were big companies. Its a big contract – a million plus

However a few thousand will be chicken feed to teh insureres

He has a SAAB and a lip beard. He is a Kahnt

Top insulting there sir!

However a few thousand will be chicken feed to teh insureres

They'll still fight it!

Not looking for any £ at all here.