Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Plumbers Bill

Options
  • 11-08-2015 3:40pm
    #1
    mercuryfrost
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭


    Hi all,

    I'm looking for some advice with regards to a bill received from a plumber for work not requested. If this isn't the right place to post, maybe you can point me in the right direction?
    (x-posted to Plumbing forum)


    In short, I requested a quote from a plumber for installation of a new toilet, taps, and a shower at a home of some tenants. I was splitting the costs of the items and installation with the tenants. We decided I would pay for the items, and they would pay for installation, either from 'my' plumber, or one of their own choosing, depending on the price.

    My plumber visited the premises, and said his quote would be around €600, but that it would depend on the positioning of the toilet. I told him cost was very important, and he suggested he would take photos of the various potential setups, alongside a quote for each. This was the last I heard from him... until...

    Three months or so later, he sent me a bill for ~€2,000, including disposal of old items, buying additional taps, fixing some pipework in the hotpress, and installation of a garden tap alongside the original items I has requested a quote for.

    I've pointed out I didn't give permission for any work to be done (and this was the first I'd heard of most of it), but offered to pay the original €600, or something around that, to reflect the work done. I asked who asked for the other items, but he hasn't answered. He has refused my offer, and now has sent a solicitors letter requesting the full amount.

    Where do I stand on this? Do I need to lawyer up?

    I'm happy to pay for the work I wanted done, and have offered, (and thought the tenant had gotten their plumber to do), but I don't want to be taken for a fool either.



    Any advice appreciated,
    and again, apologies if this is in the wrong place


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    mercuryfrost wrote: »
    Hi all,

    I'm looking for some advice with regards to a bill received from a plumber for work not requested. If this isn't the right place to post, maybe you can point me in the right direction?
    (x-posted to Plumbing forum)


    In short, I requested a quote from a plumber for installation of a new toilet, taps, and a shower at a home of some tenants. I was splitting the costs of the items and installation with the tenants. We decided I would pay for the items, and they would pay for installation, either from 'my' plumber, or one of their own choosing, depending on the price.

    My plumber visited the premises, and said his quote would be around €600, but that it would depend on the positioning of the toilet. I told him cost was very important, and he suggested he would take photos of the various potential setups, alongside a quote for each. This was the last I heard from him... until...

    Three months or so later, he sent me a bill for ~€2,000, including disposal of old items, buying additional taps, fixing some pipework in the hotpress, and installation of a garden tap alongside the original items I has requested a quote for.

    I've pointed out I didn't give permission for any work to be done (and this was the first I'd heard of most of it), but offered to pay the original €600, or something around that, to reflect the work done. I asked who asked for the other items, but he hasn't answered. He has refused my offer, and now has sent a solicitors letter requesting the full amount.

    Where do I stand on this? Do I need to lawyer up?

    I'm happy to pay for the work I wanted done, and have offered, (and thought the tenant had gotten their plumber to do), but I don't want to be taken for a fool either.



    Any advice appreciated,
    and again, apologies if this is in the wrong place

    I think his is between you and your tenant. Reads like you employed the plumber and tenant agreed to pay for labour, when plumber went to house the tenant got him to do extra items but as the property owner and person who employed the plumber, bill goes to you. I think you need to talk to your tenant, he/she probably told plumber that you were paying for everything, besides which if you were only paying for the ware/materials agreed at the time, the tenant should pay you for any additional items of work. It would seem that the plumber is in the middle and the one likely to get shafted.


  • Options
    #3
    Menas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    There is no contract between you and the plumber. It should be that simple. You asked for a quote, not for the work to be done.
    If the plumber agreed to do work after discussion with tenant then the tenant should be liable. The tenant may feel that you two had an agreement and was stupid in authorizing the plumber to do the work...
    But you do get the benefit of the work as you own the property which drags you in to it...


  • Options
    #4
    delahuntv
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭delahuntv


    ask his solicitor what basis his claim has and to show where a contract was entered into.

    Tell him failing that to proceed with legal proceedings and that your offer of €600 will remain open for 30 days in full and final settlement even though you understand that no judge woul d make any award against you.

    Failure to acceot ypur offer within 30 days will see that offer rescinded and you would ahve no issue in defending yourself in the local district court.




    My guess is your offer will be accepted.


  • Options
    #5
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Menas wrote: »
    There is no contract between you and the plumber.
    It's complicated slightly by the fact that the OP is the beneficiary of the work done. Even if they didn't authorise it, they will benefit from it in the long-term. So it's not as simple really as saying tough **** to the plumber.

    Of course, like you say there was never any contract in place, so the bulk of the liability here falls on the plumber's side for failing to ensure that a contract was in place before beginning the work.

    And the nature of the work means that there's no way to restore the property to the pre-work state.

    I guess a reasonable offer would be to compensate him to the value of the parts fitted, less the value of anything he disposed of.

    The plumber then takes a hit for the labour he unwisely engaged in, and you compensate him for the new plumbing/fittings/furniture that you now have.


  • Options
    #6
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    seamus wrote: »
    It's complicated slightly by the fact that the OP is the beneficiary of the work done. Even if they didn't authorise it, they will benefit from it in the long-term. So it's not as simple really as saying tough **** to the plumber.

    Of course, like you say there was never any contract in place, so the bulk of the liability here falls on the plumber's side for failing to ensure that a contract was in place before beginning the work.

    And the nature of the work means that there's no way to restore the property to the pre-work state.

    I guess a reasonable offer would be to compensate him to the value of the parts fitted, less the value of anything he disposed of.

    The plumber then takes a hit for the labour he unwisely engaged in, and you compensate him for the new plumbing/fittings/furniture that you now have.

    The reverse of this is that the OP may not have wanted any of the work done in the first place. If I get a sparks in to replace a socket* and they install extra sockets that I never wanted, should I pay them a 'reasonable offer' for that?

    My opinion on this is that the idiot plumber needs to take the hit.

    *I wouldn't, but others do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    No way I'd pay anything until the solicitors situation is resolved. Don't offer the €600 - that's admitting you authorised work to be done - which you didn't.
    You asked for a quote - simple. Nothing more was given the go-ahead. Ask a solicitor to send a return letter. People can't just charge you for work you never authorised to be done! That's mental!


  • Options
    #8
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    I don't see why the tenants should be bearing any cost here either. These are fixtures and fittings in a property you own. You can also get tax relief on the expenses


  • Options
    #9
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Ok a Plumbers perspective here..

    I would not be taking on a job to that value without some form of written agreement (e.mail is fine) between myself and the person paying for the work so as not to end up in a situation like yours, especially where the bill is being split as you described.
    If all you say is true, then I would first take legal advice before responding or contacting anyone else on the matter.
    Otherwise I would be contacting the tenant and asking them if they gave the plumber the authorisation to start the work, after all, it would have been the tenant that arranged the dates and access.
    Do it by text or e.mail, then you have records of communications if it goes legal.
    If the tenant admits by text or email to giving the plumber the go ahead, then remind them of your agreement and their obligation to have to pay their part of the bill.
    At then end of the day, the plumber should not have gone near your house without your permission.


  • Options
    #10
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    OP Have you been to the property to see exactly what work if any was done? You need to sort out what the plumber did and also you need to be covering the full cost of any work such as this from parts to labour as it sounds like your property was not up to standard if the work was required!

    now I would not pay or offer anything to this plumber as it is most likely that they are grossly overcharging for the parts supplied and are possibly doing this all over the place - doing the work after being asked to quote only then giving a massive bill after claiming to have spent most of that money on parts. your cowboy plumber sounds like a real con artist!


  • Options
    #11
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    ^wow, so many assumptions in one post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    athtrasna wrote: »
    I don't see why the tenants should be bearing any cost here either. These are fixtures and fittings in a property you own. You can also get tax relief on the expenses

    These situations do arise, I have come across this before where the bathroom may be in ok condition, but very basic and / or old and there would be an agreement where the cost of upgrading is split.
    In one case I remember the tenant was happy to pay for the entire job.


  • Options
    #13
    mercuryfrost
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭mercuryfrost


    Hey all,

    Thanks for the viewpoints and advice.

    K.Flyer, you're spot on. Everything was working fine, they just wanted some newer fixtures and fittings. I always try to work with tenants and offer to pay part of any improvements they would like to do to the property.

    This work took place in Q3, 2011. The tenant has since moved on. We've sent a few letters in that time, me asking for a breakdown, and asking who asked him to do the work, but to no avail.


    Additional maybe unimportant info: Whilst I'm the landlord at the property, I'm not the owner. My father (too old now to do it himself) is the owner technically.


    In my mind, it's as simple as this. Either the plumber did work because someone asked him to, and he should pursue them, or he did it without anyone asking him to, where I don't see why he should be able to charge for work he did on his own bat. I think me trying to find who asked him to do work, and me chasing them is a bit backwards, and puts some kind of onus on me.


    I liked Delahuntv's suggestion of offering a payment of €600, as a goodwill payment perhaps. But I noticed some of you think this is a poor idea, and would somehow shoot myself in the foot. As I said, I'm not out to screw the guy, he worked with us for many years, I just can't bring myself to pay such an extortionate amount over the original quote, for work I didn't request.


  • Options
    #14
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    mercuryfrost wrote: »
    I liked Delahuntv's suggestion of offering a payment of €600, as a goodwill payment perhaps. But I noticed some of you think this is a poor idea, and would somehow shoot myself in the foot. As I said, I'm not out to screw the guy, he worked with us for many years, I just can't bring myself to pay such an extortionate amount over the original quote, for work I didn't request.

    Don't offer anything. It's not about screwing the guy - but you first need to establish who owes what - where did €600 come from? It's a random amount that only makes you liable for more. There's no goodwill issue here - you either owe the money or you don't. Offering €600 could leave you liable for the entire bill because you're admitting that you commissioned him to do work - which you say you didn't. You only asked for a quote, right?

    A solicitors letter has been sent now - you need to sort that first. The plumber needs to tell you who asked for the work to be done. If you didn't authorise it and agree to the quote, why did he do it? And why should you pay for it? You weren't part of the equation, and was his duty to keep you informed if he plans on sending you a bill for work.
    Yes, you're beneficiary of the work - but that's irrelevant. By that logic, I could commission an artist to build a €100k bronze statue in my back garden and then move out - so should my old landlord then have to pay the artist because "well, you now benefit by having a swanky bronze statue in your back garden"? No - because he never asked for it or agreed to it.


  • Options
    #15
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    ^wow, so many assumptions in one post.
    A couple of assumptions, yes, it appears the work was requested by the tenants rather than required to meet minimum standards, so it was very nice of the OP to offer to cover part of the expense.

    The plumber has also worked for the OP for some years but my point about any trades person or other worker including professionals like accountants etc starting any work without a solid agreement or contract in place is unprofessional and stinks of them doing the work without permission just to produce a large bill afterwards knowing that most people will pay up if somewhat grudgingly.


  • Options
    #16
    K.Flyer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    I don't know any fellow tradesmen who would go to a job of that value without some form of formal agreement on the price and work to be done in place.
    How come the tenant got to leave the property without paying his share of the bill or the deposit held back until the issue was resolved?


  • Options
    #17
    Mick Murdock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Mick Murdock


    Surely the tenant was there for quite some time after this work was done yet the bill is still in dispute four years later?

    Has the plumber issued the bill years apart from the work?


    I think you'd win a case against him so he should accept his mistake and take €600.


  • Options
    #18
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


    Am I missing something?

    You have no contact with this plumber.

    If I ask for a quote to get my windows replaced for example and then come back home one day to find my windows replaced without my consent and a bill waiting for me - why would I be liable whether it improved my windows or not?

    I would be going after the plumber to get his work undone. Whether you want it or not. Get a quote from another plumber for the costs involved in getting his work undone and send him the bill.

    Sounds like the tenant gave him the go ahead (and access to the property) and never paid the plumber so he's coming after you instead.


  • Options
    #19
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    Jose Many Server wrote: »
    Am I missing something?

    You have no contact with this plumber.

    If I ask for a quote to get my windows replaced for example and then come back home one day to find my windows replaced without my consent and a bill waiting for me - why would I be liable whether it improved my windows or not?

    I would be going after the plumber to get his work undone. Whether you want it or not. Get a quote from another plumber for the costs involved in getting his work undone and send him the bill.

    Sounds like the tenant gave him the go ahead (and access to the property) and never paid the plumber so he's coming after you instead.

    Precisely - but I don't think we're getting the full story. This is a job from 2011 that's only coming to light now? More to this than we're being told.


  • Options
    #20
    deathtocaptcha
    Registered Users Posts: 349 ✭✭deathtocaptcha


    Tell the plumber you'll pay him €600 and not a cent more, because €600 was all you were quoted for the work you requested.

    If he did additional work without any consultation with you, knowing you were the person paying the bill, then that was his risk / loss / responsibility.

    Give him the contact details of the tenant and tell him to pursue them for the remaining amount.


  • Options
    #21
    ssmith6287
    Registered Users Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭ssmith6287


    Go on the offensive, sue him for vandalism. Altering your property without your consent. childish but fight fire with fire


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    ssmith6287 wrote: »
    Go on the offensive, sue him for vandalism. Altering your property without your consent. childish but fight fire with fire

    and in your considered legal opinion, how much is that going to cost in legal fees and what do you anticipate the outcome might be in court? :rolleyes:


Advertisement