Page 1 of 1


PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:35 am
by pitano1
Having spent a couple of hours yesterday compiling a post pertaining to this link.
And to find it [or not] this case....because its gorn innit.

I thought `a test post..appropriate.

its `probably` my mistake because i saved the draft,and then posted it later.

I find this new episode fascinating.
also revealing.

fascinating because apparantly their are some that are able to see shit that was removed
thirty years ago....[time travel.?]
revealing because.
these people are strutting around with all the brain aids you could possibly
imagine.[ipads/smart phones e,t,c]...yet it seems....they are unable to find
their own arsholes using both hands....
will upload letters/my replies soon

Na Zdorovie

Re: testing-testing

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:43 pm
by pitano1

Considering the fact i have made norequests i recieved this
on thursday.april 29th.
short synopsis
Dear mr.
Thank you for your request to..bla..bla
following a visit from our surveyor pemission has been agreed under the following
the conditions
consisted of 5 bullet points.
1.three months for completion/send required paperwork
to them.
2.the cost is paid by me.
ifpoint 2 had not contained the following i would have just returned it
as addressee not recognized
bla...bla ..will not be responsible for any future repairs

my reply

Private 26/4/2018

Dear xxx
Please note that I do not accept your letter dated 24/4/2018 on the grounds it is incorrectly addressed.
Also the contents are somewhat alarming.

The reason....the tiles you refer to were removed over thirty years ago.
Which begs the question...why would I ask permission to remove them.?

Yes I did make a request to xyz
Which replaster the ceiling.[edit..this was 2017]

As this has already been answered in the second point in your letter I shall leave
it their.
However can you please clarify the statement....xxxxxxxxxx...will not be responsible for
any future repairs.?

Please address any future correspondence to.
Kind regards.
All rights reserved.
Nunk pro tunk.

recieved the next day..
I kid you not....
[size=200]TENANCY MATTERS[/size]
an appointment has been booked for visit you on 3/5/2018.
thats it

my reply

my address.

dear xxx
Please find your incorrectly addressed letter/property enclosed.

If you need to write to me I REQUIRE you use the above address.
Use a non windowed envelope,and attach a royal mail stamp.

AND....sign with a wet signature
stating you are doing so.

Regarding your somewhat ambiguous letter.[opened in error]


I require an explanation.

You may contact me in the manner required.
Kind regards.

As you can see by the date i was going to send this off tommorow,but
i have her email to rearrange.

I`m thinking along the lines of......sending a notice to the head honcho to
stop these idiots from disturbing my peace,so all and any idea`s to achieve
that would be most welcome.

Na Zdorovie

Re: testing-testing

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 12:07 am
by iamani
Hi pitano1

Don't know what to suggest fella, if you're putting someone on Notice i think the idea is to create leverage you can use, but sometimes you have to get creative according to your situation.


Re: testing-testing

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 10:34 am
by pitano1
Thanks for reply.

I`m waiting to see IF they have the balls to answer in the required manner. :wink:

Will update as,and when.
letter 2 posted first class
have reciept..saved just over a quid.

cheers musashi.

Na Zdorovie

Re: testing-testing

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2018 4:58 pm
by pitano1
Have spent the afternoon doing my due diligence.
Came across this which,as i had not seen before and found a very
interesting piece of info.

Grounds of appeal[sic]
In this court the claimant’s primary argument was that the time has come for
a new
test of vicarious liability.
In place of the “close connection” test the courts
should apply a broader test of “representative capacity”. In the case of a
committed by an employee, the decisive question should be whether a reasonable
observer would consider the employee to be acting in the capacity of a representative
of the employer at the time of committing the tort. A company should be liable for
acts of its human embodiment. In the present case, Mr Khan was the company’s
employed representative in dealing with a customer. What mattered was not just the
closeness of the connection between his duties to his employer and his tortious
conduct, but the
setting which the employer had created. The employer created the
setting by putting the employee into contact and close physical proximity with the
claimant. Alternatively, it was
argued that the claimant should
in any event have
succeeded because he was
a lawful visitor to the premises and Mr Khan was acting
within the field of activities assigned to him in dealing with the claimant.

Sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety
za zda-ró-vye