Non- payment to a subbie

[Newboy]

This might be worth a read for those of us who have ever had non-paying customers.

Unusual police response - it's a "civil matter"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...4-000-windows-stolen-fitters-row-payment.html

 

[AronSearle]

I have to side with the homeowner, not her fault the window company didnt take payment in advance or took the risk of payment later.

Clearly tresspass, and I would argue theft, police are taking the ****.

 

[JBR]

I agree. The police appear to be 'not responsible' for more and more things these days. I suppose that may be a consequence of a reduction in their funding.

 

[handyjack]

Another dispute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA

 

[cajar]

plainly theft.

so police now not interested even when the perp's Facebook address is written on the boarded up window.

 

[JBR]

I can understand a builder demolishing his work if he has genuinely not been paid, but I understand that in the case first mentioned on this thread the woman had paid for the work. It's hardly her fault, then, is it if some intermediary has pocketed the money?

 

[Brigadier]

I can understand a builder demolishing his work if he has genuinely not been paid, but I understand that in the case first mentioned on this thread the woman had paid for the work. It's hardly her fault, then, is it if some intermediary has pocketed the money?

Easy victim though. Do you go round the builders, and risk theft, criminal damage, or assault? Or just shaft the soft target?

 

[EddieM]

The police are wrong. There is the small matter of trespass, but then 2 police matters, theft and causing criminal damage, if I were her I'd take both the fitters and the police force to court.

 

[JBR]

The police are wrong. There is the small matter of trespass, but then 2 police matters, theft and causing criminal damage, if I were her I'd take both the fitters and the police force to court.

I agree, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The police are more interested in arresting people for 'racist' comments these days. I suppose it's a matter of relative importance. Nothing political, I'm sure.

 

[ajrtd]

Fook her she shouldn't of engaged a dodgy builder who doesn't pay his bills do her extension.

 

[AronSearle]

Fook her she shouldn't of engaged a dodgy builder who doesn't pay his bills do her extension.

I know, if people would just stop being conned then con men would stop existing

 

[Newboy]

The police are wrong. There is the small matter of trespass, but then 2 police matters, theft and causing criminal damage, if I were her I'd take both the fitters and the police force to court.

Theft - only if title has passed to the homeowner

 

[AronSearle]

The police are wrong. There is the small matter of trespass, but then 2 police matters, theft and causing criminal damage, if I were her I'd take both the fitters and the police force to court.

Theft - only if title has passed to the homeowner

Title of what?

I don't get involved with that side of the building trade, I am unaware of some bit of paper that get's signed by someone to say the windows are now the property of such and such.

Seems like a straightforward contractual matter between he manufacturer and builder.

 

[securespark]

The lady paid the building firm for the job to be completed.

All correspondence should have been with that firm.

It was up to them to put it right.

The subs should not have done what they did. I'm sure they trespassed, caused criminal damage and left the property unsecured.

 

[Newboy]

Title of what?

As an example, I have around £18k worth of materials delivered to a job today.

I assume the risk for safe storage and liability for the payment due for the goods - title with supplier, risk with me.

When I pay the supplier the title passes to me - the goods are now my property.

My contract with the client specifies that title is retained (by me) until cleared payment is received in full.

The goods are on the clients premises so are at the clients risk (almost impossible to insure materials on a client's site).

Fairly standard business practise. Risk passes on delivery, title passes on payment.

I don't condone what the window supplier has done but I'd be reasonably sure that they have not committed either theft (the windows were their property) and criminal damage would be a matter of conjecture - removing some frame fixings wouldn't get the court too excited.

The youtube link earlier in the thread was (from memory) a customer who made no payment for a conservatory and porch. The builder approached the housing association (owners of the property) and it was agreed that he could remove the materials with the tenant being made responsible for making good.

As I say, I don't condone the action but do understand - it's not much fun being knocked!