..and finally, some good news!

[Tony Erikson 10]

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen. This is a serious matter. People who have civil debts must settle them through the civil courts. What you did was entirely and utterly wrong."

 

So he's basically saying anyone can rip a builder off and the law won't really help them? Rip away home owners, rip away.

[jake4jack200 10]

I wouldnt expect anything less if I ripped a builder off, good on him.

 

Agreed.

 

Its about time that the law swung in favour of people like this builder .

 

He has paid for the materials , supplied his labour and done the work .

 

Why the hell shouldnt he be able to take back what is legally his , IE , the materials ?

[Colin Peters 10]

I suppose the main problem is that the law has to apply to real builders like the above mentioned, and the dodgy "builders". So if you go to far in favour of the builder, you are giving carte blanche to the scam builders to fit something extremely badly, then when you don't pay they could just come and rip it out and fit it elsewhere, leaving the honest home-owner with no roof (or whatever).

 

I can't agree with that logic since circumstances alter cases and judge every case on it own merits

[HeadingNorth 11]

If the civil courts are the only available option, then little wonder that an increasing number of builders are taking the law into their own hands..

 

 

In which case they deserve to be convicted for criminal damage.

[rubydazzler 11]

So if you go to far in favour of the builder, you are giving carte blanche to the scam builders to fit something extremely badly, then when you don't pay they could just come and rip it out and fit it elsewhere, leaving the honest home-owner with no roof (or whatever).

However, the law is the law, and if you allow people to rip out their stuff without first going to court, the scam builders will be able to act with impunity.

But, if you'd had a cowboy builder in and refused to pay him, wouldn't it be to your advantage for him to come and rip it all out? It'd save you paying someone else to do it, after all.

[rubydazzler 11]

Not if it is your windows and doors, or roof, or something essential to your house. Assuming it needed doing in the first place, the people who fit your new will take it off anyway

For free? You could just have the new reliable and competent builder standing by with a tarp or two and then get on with the job asap ... and your brace of rottweillers slavering at their heels.

 

I think it could be quite amusing really. But then, I'm evil like that.

[rubydazzler 11]

Just seen this bit in the link ....

 

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen."

 

And yet they let baillifs do it all the time ....

[jake4jack200 10]

Just seen this bit in the link ....

 

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen."

 

And yet they let baillifs do it all the time ....

 

Brilliant point , and sums up perfectly the legal system in this country.

[rubydazzler 11]

To be fair, that is in the context of the bit where he says it should have gone through the civil courts - in order for a bailiff to remove property it must have already gone through civil courts.

So why didn't the civil courts help the builder get his money before things got to that pitch? If someone can afford to pay that amount for work done, they can afford to pay the rest.

 

I have every sympathy with the builder and none with his debtors. They'd had 5 years to pay, after all.

[rubydazzler 11]

But that is the problem, if they don't have to go to court, then they can turn up at any time and do it - you can't have your builder stood round on the off-chance that the original cowboys turn up.

I'd call him and offer him dreams beyond the riches of avarice to drop everything and rush over, when the stetson wearing ones turned up.

 

OK, I'll stop now!

[milquetoast1 10]

Just seen this bit in the link ....

 

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen."

 

And yet they let baillifs do it all the time ....

Not just beliefs. Every company that I have worked for has sent staff round to the premises of customers that have gone bust to lay claim and recover stock not paid for. Most invoices include terms that specify that title to goods does not transfer until payment is actually made.

 

If the builders merchant is allowed to recover goods from a builder that wont pay, then why not the builder in turn from his customers?

[Colin Peters 10]

Not just beliefs. Every company that I have worked for has sent staff round to the premises of customers that have gone bust to lay claim and recover stock not paid for. Most invoices include terms that specify that title to goods does not transfer until payment is actually made.

 

If the builders merchant is allowed to recover goods from a builder that wont pay, then why not the builder in turn from his customers?

 

A very good point there.

I had to sell my house and property to pay all the debts caused me by the bad debtor. Had I not done so I would have been deprived of it through the legal system, the same legal system, some of whose members compelled me to wait 5 years just to get the debtor in to a court.

 

http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com