nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Builder refuses to submit HRI until we pay final invoice

kt_sm

Builder refuses to submit HRI until we pay final invoice - but basically we are disputing that invoice.

We paid all pre-agreed costs (25k) already (for a tiny extension and installing a bathroom where there was previously a bedroom), and this final invoice is 'extras', and to be honest contains a lot of things we are questioning.

The issue is that we're nearing the end of the year (and the HRI only extends to Dec 31st). Does he have a right to refuse to log any of the work until we pay the final bill?

I'm worried that if it takes time to come to an agreement on final payment we'll miss the deadline. Surely we have a right to apply for tax relief on the 25k we already paid, regardless of whether or not the final bill is settled in 2018?

Find more posts tagged with

contract

builder

hri

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

There is no obligation on the builder to submit anything to HRI unless you have a contract which states that he does.

So there's nothing you can do until you've paid him. You can retroactively add stuff in though. He doesn't have to enter the details before 31st December

Even if it's February before he submits the details, you're still entitled to claim it back because the work was carried out and paid for before 31st December.

kt_sm

I see. Thank you!

The only mention of HRI in the contract is a small line stating "This will qualify for HRI". Would that be enough?

Also, if we do not manage to come to an agreement of the final bill and he subsequently refused to submit HRI at all for us, where would we stand do you know?

cargen

kt_sm wrote: »

I see. Thank you!

The only mention of HRI in the contract is a small line stating "This will qualify for HRI". Would that be enough?

Also, if we do not manage to come to an agreement of the final bill and he subsequently refused to submit HRI at all for us, where would we stand do you know?

I had the very same problem.
Paid final invoice and the builder never applied for the hri

[Deleted User]

kt_sm wrote:

Builder refuses to submit HRI until we pay final invoice - but basically we are disputing that invoice.

HRI is totally voluntary. Its totally up to the builder/tradesmen to decide if they want to partake in the scheme. There is no way to force the builder to submit the HRI

If you want to claim back more than you think the builder is overcharging then the logical thing to do is to pay the builder.

You always have the option of the small claims court at a later date.

lomadesigns

cargen wrote: »

I had the very same problem.
Paid final invoice and the builder never applied for the hri

That’s such a shame as it’s so simple and straight forward for builder to apply for you.

They would literally just have to log in to their “Revenue ROS “ add your name and property id and add amounts you paid and date. It automatically links to your revenue and you just login to your account and select the credits for tax year you wish to claim for.

One reason would be if there tax affairs were not in order or you paid them cash, got no invoice and no vat paid by contractor to revenue!!

Shelli2

We are now in the position that the OP described.

We picked our builder as he was registered for HRI and stated in an email that works and payments would be processed through HRI.
We paid him over 12.5k.
He then tried to charge us for fixing mistakes he made - an invoice of €200.
We refused, and contested the invoice and he refused to log the payments we had already made. Esentially holding our VAT rebate to ransom....pure extortion.

We didn't pay, he didn't log the payments and we're now looking at our legal options.

cargen

In my opinion the law should be changed.
Once you have the invoices you should be able to claim the tax credit yourself.

[Deleted User]

Shelli2 wrote: »

We are now in the position that the OP described.

We picked our builder as he was registered for HRI and stated in an email that works and payments would be processed through HRI.
We paid him over 12.5k.
He then tried to charge us for fixing mistakes he made - an invoice of €200.
We refused, and contested the invoice and he refused to log the payments we had already made. Esentially holding our VAT rebate to ransom....pure extortion.

We didn't pay, he didn't log the payments and we're now looking at our legal options.

You have no legal options. Please don't waste any money on a solicitor as it's not a legal mater. The builder is not obliged to file HRI. I didn't think you could be registered for HRI tbh. I have done work under the scheme without being registered for HRI. It's totally at the discretion of the builder weather they file HRI or not. There is no tradesman going to process HRI with an outstanding balance.

You are only talking 200 here. Definitely not enough to engage a solicitor. You could try the Small claims court. Costs 30 or 50 euro & takes about six months. Even if you win all you win is that you don't have to pay the 200. No one, not even the small claims court, can force him to file HRI

Simplest option is to pay the 200 euro invoice

cargen wrote: »

In my opinion the law should be changed.
Once you have the invoices you should be able to claim the tax credit yourself.

It's not a law & the scheme has now finished so pointless changing anything.

.......

Disgraceful.

Happened us as well. I phoned the revenue and they said there was nothing we could do.

GaGa21

Sleeper12 wrote:

The builder is not obliged to file HRI.

That may be the case but they should then not apply for jobs that clients want to claim back for.
If they agree at the start of the project to submit to the scheme, they should be held to that. Otherwise the job can be given to someone else who is happy to do so.
Is it not in the written contract? You will surely have some comeback then in small claims or with a solicitor?

[Deleted User]

GaGa21 wrote:

That may be the case but they should then not apply for jobs that clients want to claim back for. If they agree at the start of the project to submit to the scheme, they should be held to that. Otherwise the job can be given to someone else who is happy to do so. Is it not in the written contract? You will surely have some comeback then in small claims or with a solicitor?

I don't know if the builder applied for the job or did the poster approach the builder. It doesn't matter one way or the other. I'm sure the builder was willing all along to file HRI. It's not like he lied. He's waiting for the bill to be paid in full.

The builder believes that he is owed 200 euro. I have no idea if he is or isn't but HRI can't be filed till bill is paid in full. It doesn't sound like there was any contract but if there was you can be certain that it states that the bill is paid in full.

.......

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't know if the builder applied for the job or did the poster approach the builder. It doesn't matter one way or the other. I'm sure the builder was willing all along to file HRI. It's not like he lied. He's waiting for the bill to be paid in full.

The builder believes that he is owed 200 euro. I have no idea if he is or isn't but HRI can't be filed till bill is paid in full. It doesn't sound like there was any contract but if there was you can be certain that it states that the bill is paid in full.

Why should a billing dispute affect someones ability to claim back a tax credit from the state? Totally unprofessional.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote:

Why should a billing dispute affect someones ability to claim back a tax credit from the state? Totally unprofessional.

Who is unprofessional? The poster? The builder? Revenue?
You don't understand how the scheme works. The builder can't file till he's paid in full. If revenue allowed filing without the bill being paid in full the builder could file, homeowner claims tax credits, builder doesn't get paid & therefore cannot pay revenue. The rules are in place to protect revenue. The builder did not make the rules. Homeowner didn't make the rules. Revenue made the rules so I assume that you feel revenue are unprofessional?

.......

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Who is unprofessional? The poster? The builder? Revenue?
You don't understand how the scheme works. The builder can't file till he's paid in full. If revenue allowed filing without the bill being paid in full the builder could file, homeowner claims tax credits, builder doesn't get paid & therefore cannot pay revenue. The rules are in place to protect revenue. The builder did not make the rules. Homeowner didn't make the rules. Revenue made the rules so I assume that you feel revenue are unprofessional?

The builder is unprofessional. The revenue have no part in the nonsense - it was a government imposed scheme to encourage people to get work done to stimulate the economy. The revenue just administer it.

I understand perfectly how the scheme works thank you - I spent hours onto the revenue about when the builder I engaged and FULLY PAID refused to file.

The problem with the scheme is that builders can just not file and there is no comeback for the people who engaged them.

As you so condescendingly said earlier - -sure its only 200 quid. Yes it is only 200 quid so why does the builder not just file if he has been almost paid in full? He is holding the person to ransom for 200 quid. He could file for an amount less 200 quid that he has already received.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote:

The builder is unprofessional. The revenue have no part in the nonsense - it was a government imposed scheme to encourage people to get work done to stimulate the economy. The revenue just administer it.

....... wrote:

I understand perfectly how the scheme works thank you - I spent hours onto the revenue about when the builder I engaged and FULLY PAID refused to file.

You are getting uppity but you seem to be talking about a different job. I am talking about the earlier poster today.

OK I know nothing about your job but here is how it was supposed to work. You agree with the builder a price. The builder registers your job with HRI online before any work starts. The homeowner is supposed to check this is done. This is now proof that the builder is tax compliant and is allowed to partake in the scheme. You give the go ahead for the work to start. Once the homeowner has ensured that this part is done then there is no reason for the builder not to file once the bill is paid in full. If the homeowner hasn't ensured that the builder registers the job with HRI BEFORE work starts then it's the homeowner who is unprofessional as they most likely have employed a dodgy builder.

The scheme was set up to protect revenue but it was set up in such a way that the homeowner could see that the job was registered online before work started.

Assuming you followed the correct procedure and the builder still didn't file on being paid in full then there must have been a dispute over the final bill. There is no reason why a tax compliant builder won't file on being paid unless there is a disagreement over payment

In the case posted today the builder is following the rules of the scheme and seems to be perfectly willing to file once he's paid in full.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote:

As you so condescendingly said earlier - -sure its only 200 quid. Yes it is only 200 quid so why does the builder not just file if he has been almost paid in full? He is holding the person to ransom for 200 quid. He could file for an amount less 200 quid that he has already received.

The rules state that it must be paid in full. These are revenues rules not the builders. The builder is being professional and following the rules set down by revenue

Shelli2

Our bill is paid in full. He then sent a following invoice for a further 200.
I have it in writing that he would submit the HRI claim.
The HRI claim is worth over €1.5k to us.
Why do you think I should let this go?

We got quotes from many builders and tradesmen. And each time we specifically asked of they would submit the HRI claim, as the VAT rebate essentially affected what we would pay in total.

[Deleted User]

Shelli2 wrote:

Our bill is paid in full. He then sent a following invoice for a further 200. I have it in writing that he would submit the HRI claim. The HRI claim is worth over â‚¬1.5k to us. Why do you think I should let this go?

The further invoice needs to be paid before he files. He feels its for extra work and you feel its for work already quoted for. Plenty here will try tell you who is right and wrong but with only one side of the story (I'm not saying that you are wrong) & without seeing the work no one can honestly comment.

My advice is stay away from a solicitor as its only 200. At the same time you need him to file. You will lose a lot more than him.

Options as I see them:
1. pay the 200 and get him to file. He can even file in your home as you hand over the 200 if you don't trust him. Once filed you can open a small claims court case. Cost 30 or 50, I can't remember which. If as you say the "extra" work is to redo mistakes he made then the scc judge will award you the 200. The judge almost always sides with the consumer so you will get a more than a fair shot at it.

2. File the scc now. It'll take six months to get to court. Again the judge usually sides with the consumer so you'll most likely win & get the 200. However no one, not even the judge can force him to file HRI.

In option 2 you win the battle but lose the war. In option 1 you lose the battle but win the war.

The most important thing is to get him to file. Option 1 ensures that this happens. You still have a good chance of getting the 200 back.

cargen

All this thread is the proof that the Irish scheme hasn't worked.
I am not Irish and in my country of origin,
You ask for the work.
You get the invoices from the builder.
You submit tax credit to the revenue.
Job done.
If there is any dispute it doesn't affect this scheme.

Irish approach does give too much power to the builder to ask for extra money. And it looks it is happening a lot.

Shelli2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The further invoice needs to be paid before he files. He feels its for extra work and you feel its for work already quoted for. Plenty here will try tell you who is right and wrong but with only one side of the story (I'm not saying that you are wrong) & without seeing the work no one can honestly comment.

My advice is stay away from a solicitor as its only 200. At the same time you need him to file. You will lose a lot more than him.

Options as I see them:
1. pay the 200 and get him to file. He can even file in your home as you hand over the 200 if you don't trust him. Once filed you can open a small claims court case. Cost 30 or 50, I can't remember which. If as you say the "extra" work is to redo mistakes he made then the scc judge will award you the 200. The judge almost always sides with the consumer so you will get a more than a fair shot at it.

2. File the scc now. It'll take six months to get to court. Again the judge usually sides with the consumer so you'll most likely win & get the 200. However no one, not even the judge can force him to file HRI.

In option 2 you win the battle but lose the war. In option 1 you lose the battle but win the war.

The most important thing is to get him to file. Option 1 ensures that this happens. You still have a good chance of getting the 200 back.

I'm not claiming for anything to do with the 200 invoice, that is irrelevant.
I'm going to claim for the loss of €1.5k VAT rebate.
The scheme is closed, I have essentially lost €1.5k due to him not filing the payments we did make.

[Deleted User]

Shelli2 wrote:

I'm not claiming for anything to do with the 200 invoice, that is irrelevant. I'm going to claim for the loss of â‚¬1.5k VAT rebate. The scheme is closed, I have essentially lost â‚¬1.5k due to him not filing the payments we did make.

You need to calm down. You are making this into a bigger thing than it needs to be. You haven't lost anything yet. Yes the scheme is closed, as in all work has to be completed by December 31st. It's not too late for the builder to file. As far as I remember he has another 12 months to file.

If the 200 invoice is irrelevant then why not pay it to him as he files in front of you in your own kitchen. If the 200 is important to you then you can recover it through the scc.

[Deleted User]

From the HRI website

"You will know your contractor is a HRI qualifying contractor when you check HRI online and see the work details the contractor entered.Ã‚Â Once you see the details on HRI online, you know the contractor qualifies.
If the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, they will not be able to enter the details to HRI online.Ã‚Â It is important to check that the work details are on HRI online before work starts. If you do not check and the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, you will not be able to claim the HRI tax credit."

Homeowner is responsible for checking the HRI online before work starts to ensure contractor is a qualifying contractor. If you let the work start without the contractor entering your details online then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Edit: You cannot claim for any work carried out or paid for after 31 December 2018

I'd pay the 200 first thing tomorrow if it were me

.......

As I already stated - totally unprofessional by the builder.

The revenue told me they were inundated with people suffering the same problem, builder said they would file then used it as leverage in pay dispute. Or simply didnt file because they were just unprofessional cowboys.

When it happened me I told the revenue that yer man had offered me a cash price and a vat price, I took the vat price because I wanted to be above board and then was going to use HRI but they had no interest in investigating him. Said they were getting dozens of reports similar since the scheme came into effect.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

As I already stated - totally unprofessional by the builder.

The revenue told me they were inundated with people suffering the same problem, builder said they would file then used it as leverage in pay dispute. Or simply didnt file because they were just unprofessional cowboys.

When it happened me I told the revenue that yer man had offered me a cash price and a vat price, I took the vat price because I wanted to be above board and then was going to use HRI but they had no interest in investigating him. Said they were getting dozens of reports similar since the scheme came into effect.

"You will know your contractor is a HRI qualifying contractor when you check HRI online and see the work details the contractor entered.ÂÂ Once you see the details on HRI online, you know the contractor qualifies.
If the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, they will not be able to enter the details to HRI online.ÂÂ It is important to check that the work details are on HRI online before work starts. If you do not check and the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, you will not be able to claim the HRI tax credit."

In bold above. Did you do this before building started?

What details did the builder put up online?

.......

Sleeper12 wrote: »

"You will know your contractor is a HRI qualifying contractor when you check HRI online and see the work details the contractor entered. Once you see the details on HRI online, you know the contractor qualifies.
If the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, they will not be able to enter the details to HRI online. It is important to check that the work details are on HRI online before work starts. If you do not check and the contractor is not a HRI qualifying contractor, you will not be able to claim the HRI tax credit."

In bold above. Did you do this before building started?

What details did the builder put up online?

The job was registered online but yer man did not finish whatever he had to do to make it possible to make the claim online.

I was able to prove to the revenue what I had paid as I did it by bank transfer to the guys business account but they said there was nothing they could do re the scheme.

In my case yer man got the hump because we questioned the quality of his work and asked him to redo some things - it ended up with him shouting abuse and refusing to complete the snag list. After that he refused to issue a receipt, or indeed even answer the phone. We chased him to no avail for 2 months.

Dardania

Ah, contractors. The majority give the minority a bad name.
Or is it the majority of clients giving the minority a bad name!

A small life lesson for OP here - once final account is paid, there are no more snags. In commercial construction, we have things like retention, and reputational risk, but for domestic stuff, particularity for a circa 11k job - while that is a life changing amount to many people, it's small fry, and it's of greater value for you to be able to call back the builder if there's water ingress in a few months.

Sleeper12's first option seems like the most pragmatic approach (and frankly, I'd just swallow and pay the €200 in case they are legitimate extras, on a 11k job)

[Deleted User]

....... wrote:

In my case yer man got the hump because we questioned the quality of his work and asked him to redo some things - it ended up with him shouting abuse and refusing to complete the snag list. After that he refused to issue a receipt, or indeed even answer the phone. We chased him to no avail for 2 months.

There's a Hugh different between your job and the other two posters. Your builder wasn't unprofessional. He was a cowboy. That has nothing to do with the scheme.

The the builders of other two posters seem to be very professional. They are following the rules by the book. The poster from yesterday can have this filed today if they are clever about it. Of course they can get solicitors involved and it'll be too late for the builders to file & they might or might not win a case. There is a way for them to put this to bed today.

[Deleted User]

The scheme was badly set up. All other grants the work has to be carried out by qualified, certified tradesmen. With this scheme a handyman can pass themselves off as a builder. There is no minimum standard for the tradesman. Having said that the vast majority of cases were good jobs. Also when you only hear one side of the story on forums like this the law of averages suggests that half of them are not the builders fault. I'm on a plumbing group with over 2000 members. I believe half of the stories there giving out about the homeowner is the plumber fault.