Payment of contractor.

FixdePitchmark

Have someone doing work on a garage roof.

I'm totally new to all this - and it is a big enough Job.

They are looking for full payment in advance - is this the norm ?

Thanks

exaisle

Absolutely not.

punisher5112

Pay a ⅓ then usually installments once work is been done.

Last payment on completion once up to standard and as agreement.

mickdw

Get another contractor.
DO NOT PAY THEM IN ADVANCE.

You will have neither new roof or money if you do or at best you will get the worst quality job imaginable cause you have zero power over them once paid.
Get a reputable contractor who comes recommended from trusted friends not the company with the nice website or the slickest sales talk.

mickdw

If it's a significant job, you might also consider employing an Engineer to design or agree a spec and then inspect the works to ensure you get a job that is to a standard that would be required.

beauf

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

...
They are looking for full payment in advance - is this the norm ?
.

I would run a mile from anyone asking full payment in advance.

FixdePitchmark

mickdw wrote: »

Get another contractor.
DO NOT PAY THEM IN ADVANCE.

You will have neither new roof or money if you do or at best you will get the worst quality job imaginable cause you have zero power over them once paid.
Get a reputable contractor who comes recommended from trusted friends not the company with the nice website or the slickest sales talk.

They were recommended from a reputable company - so was surprised.

mickdw

There is zero genuine reason for requiring full payment in advance.
Fullstop.
Company could be in trouble if they have been previously recommended.
They could fold with your money gone with them.

jimbo1979

I would understand maybe a deposit of some sort to get going and then pay instalments only that your satisfied with

the_pen_turner

payment in full is wrong. don't pay that.
50% up front would be the most I would pay.
another 35-40% on instalments


there is only one legitimate reason for full payment upfront and that is a customer that has a history or reputation for not paying.

BryanF

the_pen_turner wrote: »

payment in full is wrong. don't pay that.
50% up front would be the most I would pay.
another 35-40% on instalments


there is only one legitimate reason for full payment upfront and that is a customer that has a history or reputation for not paying.

If the contractor has difficulty with the above, it would be middle ground to pay for any materials on site, and then discuss stage payments (timber on, battens on,tiles etc

kieran.

If they come recommended and you believe they are reputable, I would suggest lodging the full amount with your solicitor and the solicitor would then release payments at agreed milestones on receipt of an instruction from your Arch/Eng/surveyor.

This should satisfy the contractor that you have the capacity to pay the full amount. No matter how recommended/ reputable the contractor is dont pay upfront if possible good contractors go under too in my experience.

Metric Tensor

Also worth pointing out that although "paying for materials on site" is the standard practice in construction projects (particularly public funded ones) it has been known for a contractor to be paid for materials on site and then the builder's provider turning up with his lorry to repossess them ....... which leaves the client in a tricky place.

(Especially if the site is unoccupied and/or physical force is threatened)

the_pen_turner

kieran. wrote: »

If they come recommended and you believe they are reputable, I would suggest lodging the full amount with your solicitor and the solicitor would then release payments at agreed milestones on receipt of an instruction from your Arch/Eng/surveyor.

This should satisfy the contractor that you have the capacity to pay the full amount. No matter how recommended/ reputable the contractor is dont pay upfront if possible good contractors go under too in my experience.

i don't think anyone would be happy with that. it would show you have it alright but most non payer could pay if they wanted.

I wouldn't trust that situation any more than dealing with the customer . it would probably raise red flags fairly quickly

the_pen_turner

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Also worth pointing out that although "paying for materials on site" is the standard practice in construction projects (particularly public funded ones) it has been known for a contractor to be paid for materials on site and then the builder's provider turning up with his lorry to repossess them ....... which leaves the client in a tricky place.

(Especially if the site is unoccupied and/or physical force is threatened)

the opposite happens a hell of a lot more often. materials are on site and job are done but customer wont pay

Metric Tensor

the_pen_turner wrote: »

the opposite happens a hell of a lot more often. materials are on site and job are done but customer wont pay

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm sure you're right. My comments were solely to inform the OP - who we must assume is upstanding for the sake of our discussion!

the_pen_turner

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I don't disagree with that at all. I'm sure you're right. My comments were solely to inform the OP - who we must assume is upstanding for the sake of our discussion!

we can only assume that the op is honest . I'm not suggesting other wise

FixdePitchmark

Thanks guys - went with the 1/3 option - 2/3.

Genuinely was more a sort of leave situation than anything underhand.

So thanks.

Learnt a good bit - and 1st in the line of many contracts.