Money owed.

80s Child

My father is a carpenter and has been for the past 40 years, doing jobs on the shake of a handshake all of the time.

He and two other lads have been completing work on a house for a gentleman from the UK who has acquired a residence for a holiday home. Everything stated out fine, they did about a month's work and he came over and paid them what they were due. All good.

So, today he was to meet them at the residence to pay them the rest of their money, there's three of them and cumutively they're owed just over 5k, but he stood them up and has his phone turned off. Providing nothing actually happened to him, it seems that he is trying to bow out from paying the rest owed.

I'm at the home place now and we're considering what the next move will be. From a legal perspective, what exactly is our next play and what are our chances of actually getting the money, IF he's trying to not pay.

Regarding him and his details, we have his home a dress in the UK and the local building providers would have had to do a credit check on him to be able to set up an account with them.

Any advice, recommendations, or experience in these situations would be greatly appreciated!

Kristopherus

Try and establish if he's going to pay or not. Is he a returning emigrant or a Uk citizen? If the latter, you may have some difficulty establishing his bona fides. As a last resort, if stuff has not been paid for and will not be paid for, then they are quite within their rights to remove that stuff.

80s Child

UK citizen.

He just contacted saying that he 'wasn't happy with the work that was completed and that it was a wasted journey over'. He came over, had a night in the house and went back without even meeting those involved. They feel here that he is trying to come up with excuses.

With regards to taking out the fittings: given the fact that he paid for the materials but they installed them, would that not make it theft as he actually owned the materials involved?

brian_t

meath4sam wrote: »

Take the materials out and stack them in a pile outside his front door maybe.

That would involve doing more work and guarantees they won't get paid.

MarkAnthony

80s Child wrote: »

They'd prefer to just be paid for the work that has been done.

From a legal POV, could we actually change the locks?

Handshakes are all well and good but let's assume for a moment the work is substandard - what is anyone falling back on? With no scope of works or contract what's to say the homeowner isn't completely genuine in his assertion he's not happy with the work?

What gives you the impression changing the locks would be a course of action you could take?

80s Child

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Handshakes are all well and good but let's assume for a moment the work is substandard - what is anyone falling back on? With no scope of works or contract what's to say the homeowner isn't completely genuine in his assertion he's not happy with the work?

What gives you the impression changing the locks would be a course of action you could take?

The standard of the per is not in question, not because of whom it is but because of what i5 is

Whatever he wants to say, he should say I took them.

MarkAnthony

80s Child wrote: »

The standard of the per is not in question, not because of whom it is but because of what i5 is

Whatever he wants to say, he should say I took them.

I'm afraid I didn't decipher much of that! A few drinks tonight or posted from a phone?

80s Child

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm afraid I didn't decipher much of that! A few drinks tonight or posted from a phone?

Apologies. A bit of both I'm afraid!! 😉

With the gentlemen that are involved, and obviously I'm related, I can't believe the standard of work is sub par. These are guys that never have to work outside a ten mile radius usually, so their local reputations would be fairly solid.

With regards to changing the locks, the thinking was that the next time he comes over and tries to get in, that he'd have to make contact and meet them as he wouldn't be able to gain access to the house.

TheChizler

80s Child wrote: »

With regards to changing the locks, the thinking was that the next time he comes over and tries to get in, that he'd have to make contact and meet them as he wouldn't be able to gain access to the house.

Pretty sure that would be a terrible idea...

Graham

Go and take legal advice before you go and do something dumb.

Seriously, ripping anything out and/or changing the locks is not going to help the situation and is quite likely to make things worse.

80s Child

Graham wrote: »

Go and take legal advice before you go and do something dumb.

Seriously, ripping anything out and/or changing the locks is not going to help the situation and is quite likely to make things worse.

Ya, that's what they're doing. It's just heart breaking to see this type of behaviour.

If there was actually a problem, they'd have no problem with sitting down and sorting it out. He just seems to not want to pay.

This money has been owed since before Christmas. The omens aren't good.

MarkAnthony

80s Child wrote: »

Apologies. A bit of both I'm afraid!! 😉

With the gentlemen that are involved, and obviously I'm related, I can't believe the standard of work is sub par. These are guys that never have to work outside a ten mile radius usually, so their local reputations would be fairly solid.

With regards to changing the locks, the thinking was that the next time he comes over and tries to get in, that he'd have to make contact and meet them as he wouldn't be able to gain access to the house.

I'd advise against it. If you must do something like that fit an additional lock rather than changing the one that's there.

Really it's a matter for letters and the courts, but then this is the legal discussions forum, you'd get a different answer (albeit a wrong one IMHO) if you ask else where/down the pub etc.

NUTLEY BOY

Balking at the final payment stage is classically typical of some types of building contracts. The claim that the work was below standard is almost boringly predictable as the justification.

The usual tactic is that the customer knows full well that the work is up to the required standard but makes tendentious assertions with the specific cynical objective of reducing the final account. I have seen this type of nonsense tried on with architects and surveyors when their final accounts are rendered for a job and there are sudden claims of inadequacy but surprise, surprise, the attitude softens if the final account is reduced. It is constructive fraud in it's character.........:mad:

The proper answer to the customer is to invite him to make a snag list of the alleged defects. If there are actually any defects they can be put right and the final account can be paid.

If your father still has access to the "site" do a thorough photographic survey of all the work that was actually done.

People express doubts about the existence of a contract. IMHO you do not have to have anything in writing in a scenario like this to have an effective contractual relationship with it's attendant rights and obligations.

My inner cynic is betting that the customer in question probably does this kind of thing with trades people as a hobby. I have seen people do this type of thing as a matter of form and they do get away with it if allowed.

In short, you cannot expect to enjoy the benefit of the tradesman's work and then shaft him on the final payment as that is an essential failure of performance / consideration under contract.

Changing locks, putting on an extra lock of your own and such like are probably bad ideas as there is no real legal authority to do that. If there are materials on site which have been bought by OP's father but not paid for by the customer there should be no problem in repatriating them. However, that is not the same as deconstructing structures already built as that could constitute a criminal act e.g. criminal damage.

In summary, the customer needs to be shown that the matter is not going to be let drop. This is particularly important if there is any chance that the customer may actually intend to sell the house on as distinct from residing there.

P.S. Google the customer to see if there is anything against him e.g newspaper reports of court proceedings. I would also be tempted to check his local County Court to see if there are outstanding judgments against him.

Graham

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

The proper answer to the customer is to invite him to make a snag list of the alleged defects. If there are actually any defects they can be put right and the final account can be paid.

If your father still has access to the "site" do a thorough photographic survey of all the work that was actually done.

+1

Most sensible post of the thread so far.

80s Child

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Balking at the final payment stage is classically typical of some types of building contracts. The claim that the work was below standard is almost boringly predictable as the justification.

The usual tactic is that the customer knows full well that the work is up to the required standard but makes tendentious assertions with the specific cynical objective of reducing the final account. I have seen this type of nonsense tried on with architects and surveyors when their final accounts are rendered for a job and there are sudden claims of inadequacy but surprise, surprise, the attitude softens if the final account is reduced. It is constructive fraud in it's character.........:mad:

The proper answer to the customer is to invite him to make a snag list of the alleged defects. If there are actually any defects they can be put right and the final account can be paid.

If your father still has access to the "site" do a thorough photographic survey of all the work that was actually done.

People express doubts about the existence of a contract. IMHO you do not have to have anything in writing in a scenario like this to have an effective contractual relationship with it's attendant rights and obligations.

My inner cynic is betting that the customer in question probably does this kind of thing with trades people as a hobby. I have seen people do this type of thing as a matter of form and they do get away with it if allowed.

In short, you cannot expect to enjoy the benefit of the tradesman's work and then shaft him on the final payment as that is an essential failure of performance / consideration under contract.

Changing locks, putting on an extra lock of your own and such like are probably bad ideas as there is no real legal authority to do that. If there are materials on site which have been bought by OP's father but not paid for by the customer there should be no problem in repatriating them. However, that is not the same as deconstructing structures already built as that could constitute a criminal act e.g. criminal damage.

In summary, the customer needs to be shown that the matter is not going to be let drop. This is particularly important if there is any chance that the customer may actually intend to sell the house on as distinct from residing there.

P.S. Google the customer to see if there is anything against him e.g newspaper reports of court proceedings. I would also be tempted to check his local County Court to see if there are outstanding judgments against him.

Much appreciated!

marklazarcovic

Would not be surprised to see that house up for sale now the work is done

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Legal advice cannot be sought or given here.

This includes advice as to whether locks can be changed or materials removed.

Certain posts deleted. Thread closed.