Bad job by a builder, what to do?

Paul_D

Hi, my father got some job done to one of the rooms (joist reinforcement and change of floorboards, not 100% sure on the specifics). The job was really badly done and the whole thing has to be ripped out and re-done again. This was confirmed by a certified architect. The hired builder doesn't want to hear anything about it, despite numerous conversations. What would be a recommend course of action here? I was thinking about small claims court, however there is no paperwork associated with the agreed job, it was purely a verbal agreement for which my father paid cash upfront (which was in retrospect a bad idea). The builder in question is also my father's neighbour so going via the court is the last resort and even if he does, is there any change in winning the case? Thanks in advance.

Notavirus.exe

Cowboys...

I suppose that you would be a witness to your father paying the guy to do it so maybe you could bring a case against him. Ask for the money back and threaten to bring him to court if he refuses to give you your money back.

MarkAnthony

Simply a case of going to court I'm afraid. Winning is the easy bit - enforcement could be a complete pain in the arse.

I'm all for small jobs - I've even gone to 3K* - on nixers. But when it comes to anything important it's better to be above board, vat paid and a proper contract drawn up. It's not foolproof but it will scare off a lot of cowboys going that route.

Sorry OP, I hope it works out for you and your Dad. Probably the best thing to do is spread the word (not here).


*Heart in my mouth for the whole bloody week after forking over €1000 deposit. No way was he getting the whole lot. Turned out to be a bloody brilliant fitter!

Paul_D

Thanks for replies guys, probably going to try the small claims. I wonder even if winning is realistic since there is no evidence of money exchange, don't know if being a witness will have its value in court, but worth a try of course.

MarkAnthony

Paul_D wrote: »

Thanks for replies guys, probably going to try the small claims. I wonder even if winning is realistic since there is no evidence of money exchange, don't know if being a witness will have its value in court, but worth a try of course.

Small claims is a procedure. It's fairly informal, more likely than not yer man won't turn up and there will be a judgement in default. Even if he does it's a myth that one word against the other is useless.

Enforcement will be your biggest issue, but it's worth €25 to get that far.

Jasnah

Why is enforcement so difficult, as a matter of interest? I've had a claim brought years ago in another country, succeeded and the matter was never enforced – I just don't see why this part of the process is so difficult.

Ken.

Jasnah wrote: »

Why is enforcement so difficult, as a matter of interest? I've had a claim brought years ago in another country, succeeded and the matter was never enforced – I just don't see why this part of the process is so difficult.

Because in order to get enforcement you have to go up through the next levels of court which can start costing you(the complainant) lots of money with possibly no chance of getting it back at all.

K.Flyer

Jasnah wrote: »

Why is enforcement so difficult, as a matter of interest? I've had a claim brought years ago in another country, succeeded and the matter was never enforced – I just don't see why this part of the process is so difficult.

I know of an elderly lady in her eighties who took her local builder to court over a small extension that was later condemned.
Won her case with costs, but never saw a single penny from the builder.

MarkAnthony

ken wrote: »

Because in order to get enforcement you have to go up through the next levels of court which can start costing you(the complainant) lots of money with possibly no chance of getting it back at all.

I'm open to correction but the SmCC Procedure orders are generally enforceable in of themselves. Perhaps you mean in relation to judgement mortgages etc. ?

In regards to the SmCCP order you'll get onto the Sheriff who will charge a small fee which will be refunded back to you if he is successful in enforcing the judgement. The problem is although he can be very effective in enforcing against large companies an shops, enforcing against a sole trader can be quite difficult.

Tools of the trade of exempt so that's the van et al out. He's unlikely to go remove items from the builders home either.

Jasnah

I just don't really understand why we let people away with other people's money when a court has made an order. In my experience, sheriffs don't seem to be effective against individuals at all. I don't understand why any of their possessions might be exempt – I see the logic that they need to continue in their line of work etc., but that just isn't good enough if they've essentially stolen money from others – these people have no responsibility to fund their employment.

It should be a case of they have to pay if they have it, no matter where that money comes from, and if they refuse to do so, they should be held in contempt. Very very tiresome stuff.

slimjimmc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm open to correction but the SmCC Procedure orders are generally enforceable in of themselves. Perhaps you mean in relation to judgement mortgages etc. ?

In regards to the SmCCP order you'll get onto the Sheriff who will charge a small fee which will be refunded back to you if he is successful in enforcing the judgement. The problem is although he can be very effective in enforcing against large companies an shops, enforcing against a sole trader can be quite difficult.

Tools of the trade of exempt so that's the van et al out. He's unlikely to go remove items from the builders home either.

So does that mean the following is incorrect?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/enforcement_of_judgments.html

They may not seize your necessary clothes and bedding and the tools of your trade provided the value of such necessities is not more than €19. In practice, goods with a low resale value are unlikely to be seized.

FlickBean

Are there laws against naming and shaming on this site?

MarkAnthony

slimjimmc wrote: »

So does that mean the following is incorrect?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/enforcement_of_judgments.html

The anecdotal information I have is that they don't seize tools of the trade full stop.

FlickBean wrote: »

Are there laws against naming and shaming on this site?

Yes the supreme source of law in the universe, that of Dav, Gordon, Zaph et al - the supreme guardians of the interwebz and the law that flows from it e.g. forum charters.

Serjeant Buzfuz

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The anecdotal information I have is that they don't seize tools of the trade full stop.



Yes the supreme source of law in the universe, that of Dav, Gordon, Zaph et al - the supreme guardians of the interwebz and the law that flows from it e.g. forum charters.

If he hasn't got a bob you are out of luck unfortunately