Potentially being taken to court. What should I do?

[Harvest Fields]

They are going to argue that I either was incompetent or didn't check for pipes under the tiles. Not sure how I could have checked that. I will argue that a pan was previously fitted there so I had no reason to expect there to be pipes where I would be drilling.

You’ll do fine mate. Play it exactly as you have here.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

They are going to argue that I either was incompetent or didn't check for pipes under the tiles. Not sure how I could have checked that. I will argue that a pan was previously fitted there so I had no reason to expect there to be pipes where I would be drilling.

thats the thing flip it how would they suggested you check

 

[Welder]

Hi Ash.

Firstly, your 'gesture' was exactly that. You made it clear there was no liability taken. The law does not see that kind of thing as normal people see it. The law sees that gesture as simply that NO inference whatsoever. That is now concluded.

However, it works in your favour as you have demonstrated you wished to move towards them. She has remained intransigent.

You have also asked for further information, disclosure in legal terms. They have either ignored or refused to supply that information. The court will require it believe me.

If it were me, I would not even acknowledge the requests. Why? To do so puts her in charge, leaves her to drive it and you to respond. Personally, I would resend the letter asking for full disclosure and breakdowns of all costs but now it would be minus the gesture. Perhaps. and I am not certain here so you need to take some advice, you now start talking of your accrued costs.

When she issues the court order, you have the chance to issue a counterclaim. Another alternative is to issue a court order against her before she raises one to you for the harassment. Again advice reqd.

The bad news there though is that as a self employed person, where we all minimise our tax liability and therefore minimise our income, your potential claim will be quite light in terms of hourly rate. You can completely forget £400 a day unless you can prove you are currently paying tax at that same rate.

As already discussed however, and hopefully you've carried out, you'll have kept contemporaneos notes to indicate just what time you have spent defending yourself against this daft accusation and therefore be able to quantify time spent.

The reality of these cases is that often, even if you win, the judge may tell you you have nothing to claim. You will have 'won' in the eyes of the law but it will have cost you to do so. It may well prove more expensive to defend your honour than to roll over.

In order to minimise your costs, I would draw up a summary/timeline of events to take to someone so they can get stuck into it without racking up too many hours at £200 per hour.

Or just meet her in dark alley and graphically explain her future to her JUST KIDDIN!

PS. What you can do in the meantime is to gather evidence from an independent engineer (e.g. someone who's perhaps a CIPHE member) who will act as an expert witness on your behalf. The cost of this will form part of your counterclaim. I would be asking what custom & practise is (so what normal plumbers do) for the scenario you encountered. Personally I know of no one who would have checked for pipes underfloor. It is not 'reasonable' (legal term for normal) to do so. Even if they say it is one can soon inject an element of farce into what might be a problem. Most of the time you can also through their desire to keep costs down back at them in those circumstances too so you were forced by the insistence to keep costs down to do a minimal job. You get my drift. In court they'll look bloody daft.

 

[Ric2013]

as a self employed person, where we all minimise our tax liability and therefore minimise our income

As a socialist, and an ethical business, I would like to clarify that my accounting practices reflect my actual income and my actual expenditure accurately so that I will be taxed fairly to pay for essential public services (amongst other things the government spends money on).

No doubt Dave is merely referring to the fact that we all record our expenses and these are subtracted from our income, thus our day rate is not all profit, but I would like to have it on record that willfully misrepresenting profit to be lower than it actually is is not acceptable practice and not something I do myself. This is what some of the less ethical corporations are doing and I do not approve of it.

 

[Harvest Fields]

As a socialist, and an ethical business, I would like to clarify that my accounting practices reflect my actual income and my actual expenditure accurately so that I will be taxed fairly to pay for essential public services (amongst other things the government spends money on).

No doubt Dave is merely referring to the fact that we all record our expenses and these are subtracted from our income, thus our day rate is not all profit, but I would like to have it on record that willfully misrepresenting profit to be lower than it actually is is not acceptable practice and not something I do myself. This is what some of the less ethical corporations are doing and I do not approve of it.

Same here mate. Everything I earn goes through my books. Wouldn’t have it any other way.

 

[Welder]

As a socialist, and an ethical business, I would like to clarify that my accounting practices reflect my actual income and my actual expenditure accurately so that I will be taxed fairly to pay for essential public services (amongst other things the government spends money on).

No doubt Dave is merely referring to the fact that we all record our expenses and these are subtracted from our income, thus our day rate is not all profit, but I would like to have it on record that willfully misrepresenting profit to be lower than it actually is is not acceptable practice and not something I do myself. This is what some of the less ethical corporations are doing and I do not approve of it.

Excuse me! Where the hell did that come from?
No Ric, I am not referring to that at all.
Read what I said, do not read anything INTO what I said based on your own biases.
We all legally minimise our tax liability - that's what we pay accountants for.
Do not try to portrait me as some tax evader cos that will p1ss me right off...

 

[rpm]

Excuse me! Where the hell did that come from?
No Ric, I am not referring to that at all.
Read what I said, do not read anything INTO what I said based on your own biases.
We all legally minimise our tax liability - that's what we pay accountants for.
Do not try to portrait me as some tax evader cos that will p1ss me right off...

Dave I think it was these four words that caused confusion.
"and minimise our income"

 

[Harvest Fields]

Excuse me! Where the hell did that come from?
No Ric, I am not referring to that at all.
Read what I said, do not read anything INTO what I said based on your own biases.
We all legally minimise our tax liability - that's what we pay accountants for.
Do not try to portrait me as some tax evader cos that will p1ss me right off...

I don’t think he meant for you to take offence mate. He was just saying that not all of us are bothered about our tax liability. I for one earn want I earn and will pay tax on all of it. As we all know not all of us do that. (I think that was his point).

 

[Ric2013]

Excuse me! Where the hell did that come from?

Do not try to portrait me as some tax evader cos that will p1ss me right off...

Dave,

I wouldn't dream of portraying you as a tax evader, and I meant to be quite clear on that point in my second paragraph. Obviously I failed, though I'm not quite sure how I could have been any clearer.

All I meant was that your comment could be interpreted more than one way; while you no doubt simply meant that a £400 day rate could not be claimed as loss of earnings because there would also be loss of expenses (as I explained), the line about minimising tax liability could be read in another way too. And the way your line about Ash not being able to prove he is paying tax on £400 a day reads, really did suggest to me that you thought HE was on the fiddle. Clearly an honest self-assessment, with income of £400 a day would declare £400 a day, but would also declare £*** a day in expenses to be deducted from income, making taxable profit much lower.

All I wanted to clarify that I do not approve of or engage in any tax evasion or legal or illegal avoidance techniques (except a small ISA, my mother's suggestion, and a waste of time in any case if you ask me, as it was set up at a time when I was a student and not earning over the tax threshold (and I would feel bad about that, if it actually made any meaningful interest)).

No aspersions on your tax return accuracy were intended or implied!

 

[Welder]

Bloody hate email...

Sorry people. **** day. What I should have done is asked for clarification before getting out of my pram.

I really do appreciate everyone trying to make me see sense.

My real point was/is. A day rate isn't what we end up earning as an annual rate. The courts will take your HMRC declared annual income (because that is generally the only way you can prove income to them) and divide it by the working days in a year regardless of whether you take any holiday or not.

Have a good evening and apologies again.

 

[Ric2013]

No problems. I take it you watched Jeremy Hunt's speech on Youtube at lunchtime too? Enough to put most of Europe in a bad mood, while I sat in front of my monitor thinking 'Oh my God? Dod he really say that publicly?'.
Hope tomorrow's better for you mate!

 

[Welder]

Sorry, that response was on a rubbish day.

Today is yet another. No not that fool. Even bigger fools. Insurers. My car was written off a couple of weeks ago whilst I was taking my wife to hospital. We were inside and nowhere near it. However the old boy just drove off.

These things happen and frankly he could have received any manner of news so I wasn't too fussed. However the insurers, Elephant (part of the Admiral Group but not admirable) are a nightmare. I want it back etc so that's sorted but it turns out I'll be paying 30% more on my premium for ever as I was a victim. Plus they refuse to pay out for a hire car whilst mine is off being repaired. They also told me I needed a new MOT as it had been written off and gave me some nonsensical write off category. The guy from DVLA just burst into laughter when I told him what they required me to do!

Upshot of all of this is that i have to take out a private prosecution on this old boy to get back what I'm owed by insurers. What I shall be doing however is citing them as the reason I'm doing it so they get lots of SM attention over their appalling attitude.

Off to write yet another letter....

 

[Phil]

Sorry, that response was on a rubbish day.

Today is yet another. No not that fool. Even bigger fools. Insurers. My car was written off a couple of weeks ago whilst I was taking my wife to hospital. We were inside and nowhere near it. However the old boy just drove off.

These things happen and frankly he could have received any manner of news so I wasn't too fussed. However the insurers, Elephant (part of the Admiral Group but not admirable) are a nightmare. I want it back etc so that's sorted but it turns out I'll be paying 30% more on my premium for ever as I was a victim. Plus they refuse to pay out for a hire car whilst mine is off being repaired. They also told me I needed a new MOT as it had been written off and gave me some nonsensical write off category. The guy from DVLA just burst into laughter when I told him what they required me to do!

Upshot of all of this is that i have to take out a private prosecution on this old boy to get back what I'm owed by insurers. What I shall be doing however is citing them as the reason I'm doing it so they get lots of SM attention over their appalling attitude.

Off to write yet another letter..

Blood sucking scum all insurers..its an absolute joke.

My mate lost his wallet in Morrissons and he was nagged by his wife to ring up and asked if the cash in it was covered by his house insurance so he rang up to ask and of course it wasn't. Big miskate to tell them anything!
The next day some guy had found it and dropped it back in to him and the following year his house insurance went up so he rang up to ask why and the woman said it says here you lost your wallet last year and he was like yes...but I didn't claim and she said yes but you still lost it and you've proved yourself a higher risk.

 

[Phil]

Blood sucking scum all insurers..its an absolute joke.

My mate lost his wallet in Morrissons and he was nagged by his wife to ring up and asked if the cash in it was covered by his house insurance so he rang up to ask and of course it wasn't. Big miskate to tell them anything!
The next day some guy had found it and dropped it back in to him and the following year his house insurance went up so he rang up to ask why and the woman said it says here you lost your wallet last year and he was like yes...but I didn't claim and she said yes but you still lost it and you've proved yourself a higher risk.

So the old geezer managed to completely write off a car in the car park and just drove off?

 

[Best]

Blood sucking scum all insurers..its an absolute joke.

My mate lost his wallet in Morrissons and he was nagged by his wife to ring up and asked if the cash in it was covered by his house insurance so he rang up to ask and of course it wasn't. Big miskate to tell them anything!
The next day some guy had found it and dropped it back in to him and the following year his house insurance went up so he rang up to ask why and the woman said it says here you lost your wallet last year and he was like yes...but I didn't claim and she said yes but you still lost it and you've proved yourself a higher risk.

Same Phil as if you are doing nothing wrong when driving and someone crashes into you.
Your insurance company can put your insurance up the next year despite if you have protected no claims bonus and that the other persons insurance had covered the costs.
Then the next year if you decide just to take your business elsewhere - the other insurances will ask - did you have an accident in the last 5 years?
Although the accident was nothing to do with you, they look at you as a higher risk and will quote you higher.
Your previous protected bonus is irrelevant because it was only with the previous insurance.
It is all a joke.

 

[Deleted member 32524]

They must give you the opportunity to fix it at your expense. You are not responsible if they pay someone else to do the work. They have just shot themselves in the foot

 

[Welder]

They must give you the opportunity to fix it at your expense. You are not responsible if they pay someone else to do the work. They have just shot themselves in the foot

They do Duncan. However, YOU still pay more. All this BS about protected no claims is smoke and mirrors. They put your basic premium up - end of.

My thoughts are to test this in European court of human rights. I feel sure this victimisation (cos that's what it is) is unlawful.

Have written directly the the Admiral Group Chief Exec today telling him the service delivered is raf from admirable .
He, or his office, have opened it so we'll see where that goes.

 

[armyash]

I've just caught up on the recent posts. I hope all is sorted.

I will get it back on topic for those interested. Here is what the letter from the customer says.

Got my surname wrong. I don't use my surname as the name of my company, I have left them business cards with my name before and it wouldn't be hard to find who I am using my mobile number)

She did not at the time tell me about the damage in full (she wasn't aware of it, I didn't find out until 11.5.18!, the boyfriend text me on the 10th after I missed his call. I called him in the 11th and that's when he told me what had happened and they had the leak repaired by then)

Ive requested invoices, all I've received is an invoice from the plumbing firm for £340.

I have a recording of the call I have made to the company who did the repairs and he says that he advised her to get me back but she said she was taking me to court.

 

[Ric2013]

'At the time' implies that at the time you caused the damage, you were aware or made aware of it. I would rebutt this. She could be referring to your correspondance of May, but I would make it absolutely clear that as far as you could possibly tell, there was no leak when you left the property.

An anecdote for you. A friend of mine was working in a very posh house some years ago. His boss rang him at 20.00 hours and he goes to investigate a leak at a house he had worked on that day. He gets there, and he's going to be sued, the damage he has caused etc etc how can he call himself a plumber bla bla bla. And he wanders to the floor where he had run pipes that day.

'Oh', he says, 'I see you've started putting the boards back down.'

'Yes, but waste of time since your pipework leaks bla bla bla! Sue you, hundreds of pounds of damage, ornate plastered ceiling etc.'

'Funny though that you've put the nails in the centre of the boards. I always run the pipes in notches down where the centre of the board will be so you can nail on each side of the pipes. I wonder if a nail has gone through a pipe.'

At this point, the customer went quiet and my friend fitted a replacement section to the nail-damaged pipe. He never got an apology, mind you!

Not saying what happened in your case was the same, but I smell a rat.

 

[armyash]

'At the time' implies that at the time you caused the damage, you were aware or made aware of it. I would rebutt this. She could be referring to your correspondance of May, but I would make it absolutely clear that as far as you could possibly tell, there was no leak when you left the property.

An anecdote for you. A friend of mine was working in a very posh house some years ago. His boss rang him at 20.00 hours and he goes to investigate a leak at a house he had worked on that day. He gets there, and he's going to be sued, the damage he has caused etc etc how can he call himself a plumber bla bla bla. And he wanders to the floor where he had run pipes that day.

'Oh', he says, 'I see you've started putting the boards back down.'

'Yes, but waste of time since your pipework leaks bla bla bla! Sue you, hundreds of pounds of damage, ornate plastered ceiling etc.'

'Funny though that you've put the nails in the centre of the boards. I always run the pipes in notches down where the centre of the board will be so you can nail on each side of the pipes. I wonder if a nail has gone through a pipe.'

At this point, the customer went quiet and my friend fitted a replacement section to the nail-damaged pipe. He never got an apology, mind you!

Not saying what happened in your case was the same, but I smell a rat.

Ive re-read it, yes it could be she meant she made me aware of the damage etc in May. Still too late though as she had paid for the repairs by then and not made me aware.

 

[Best]

I've just caught up on the recent posts. I hope all is sorted.

I will get it back on topic for those interested. Here is what the letter from the customer says.

Got my surname wrong. I don't use my surname as the name of my company, I have left them business cards with my name before and it wouldn't be hard to find who I am using my mobile number)

She did not at the time tell me about the damage in full (she wasn't aware of it, I didn't find out until 11.5.18!, the boyfriend text me on the 10th after I missed his call. I called him in the 11th and that's when he told me what had happened and they had the leak repaired by then)

Ive requested invoices, all I've received is an invoice from the plumbing firm for £340.

I have a recording of the call I have made to the company who did the repairs and he says that he advised her to get me back but she said she was taking me to court.

View attachment 34729

Read the first sentence the customer has done in that letter.
It says - “Damage to floor and pipework ..................... due to faulty fitting of toilet.”

Begs the questions - how they can allege the toilet was faulty installed and also -how could the toilet be installed other than by drilling of the points on the floor determined by where the customer wanted the toilet pan fixed and where the toilet manufacturer designed the fixing points?

The letter reads repeatedly as threats of court. Classic scare tactics in hope you will compromise.
They might go to court, but I would go.
Take your time for a few days to read that letter. Note they give you 30 days to respond, so take all that time to do so, - pees them off and allows you time to work out your tactics.
You don’t need to respond, but a polite letter, short but concise, cleverly done to rebuff their story would be good.
Perhaps think about pointing out your name is not what they used.
You were not informed of any allegation and the company she employed have informed you that she told them she just wanted court against their advice.
Toilet fixing points were not moveable.
Pipes were not traceable nor should they be so shallow and ideally not have been installed below a toilet pan.

 

[rpm]

I've just caught up on the recent posts. I hope all is sorted.

I will get it back on topic for those interested. Here is what the letter from the customer says.

Got my surname wrong. I don't use my surname as the name of my company, I have left them business cards with my name before and it wouldn't be hard to find who I am using my mobile number)

Not important here on the forum but stay away from using brackets in a formal letter or come back and proof read after 24hrs mate.

 

[armyash]

OK here is what I intend to send. It will be handwritten, set out properly and no use of brackets.

Please let me know if I should add anything, remove anything or change anything. Thanks. Here we go.

Dear Ms........

Thank you for your letter dated 16.9.18. I too was happy to come to an agreement with you regarding the leak at your property. I'd like to remind you that my offer of £150.00 was a goodwill gesture to hopefully resolve the matter and not a refund for being at fault. I believe this was a fair offer under the circumstances as I was never given an opportunity to rectify the plumbing although between the toilet being fitted and you getting the repair done you had enough time to make me aware of what had happened.

This is the first correspondence from yourself in the 6 months since I fitted the toilet. All other discussions have been between myself and your partner Mr....... of (insert address).

The first I heard of the matter was when I spoke to Mr..... on 11th May 2 months after the toilet was fitted. I asked why was I not asked to make any repairs and he said it was because you didn't want me in the property. If you didn't want me in your property to carry out the repairs I still should have been made aware a repair was needed and given the chance to discuss repairs to be made by another plumber. That never happened Mr..... Said its a case of hand over the sum in question or you will take me to court. I asked for time to get back to him. This caused me considerable distress as I felt I was being blackmailed.

I feel the need to address other aspects of your letter. The toilet was not fitted in a faulty way. It was connected to the existing plumbing. I had no reason to expect there to be heating pipes under the tiled floor as there had been a pan fitted there previously and it is not good practise to fit pipes where a pan will need to be fixed. There was no sign of a leak as I fitted the toilet and when I returned a few days later to board up the cavity wall there was still no sign of a leak. There is no realistic way I could have checked for pipes being there.

I have spoken to the company who carried out the repair who confirmed it was not done through incompetence but that during plunbing tasks this can happen. They said that they advised you to get me back to carry out the repair but you said no and that you wanted to take me to court to get the money, I have this call recorded and can provide transcripts of the conversation.

I have taken advice and I have been told I should have been given the opportunity to rectify the fault within a reasonable time frame. This is called 'repeat performance'. If you didn't want me in the property then I still should have been made aware of the problem and a chance to discuss repairs and come to an agreement. I still hope to resolve this matter amicably but I feel what I have offered is more than fair considering everything. For any future correspondence I'd like to make you aware that my surname is..... and not.....

Yours sincerely

Not in the letter. I charged £320 to fit the toilet and also vanity unit and basin. I supplied pan con and copper pipe and fittings and the basin waste, waste pipe, trap and fittings. The toilet took approx 1.5hour to fit the rest of the job was knocking out the wall to get to the basin supplies and repipe and make good the wall. I felt that was a fair price each way.

 

[rpm]

Take out the During plumbing tasks this can happen.
There should not of been pipes in that area regardless of how deep or shallow, concentrate on the fact that there was a pan there.
Personally I would say you have taken legal advice, fight fire with fire ash

 

[ShaunCorbs]

I wouldn't add the first bit "I too was happy to come to an agreement with you regarding the leak at your property." sounds like your admission

 

[armyash]

Thanks for the replies so far. I agree with both points made.

 

[Welder]

"I believe this was a fair offer under the circumstances as I was never given an opportunity to rectify the plumbing although between the toilet being fitted and you getting the repair done you had enough time to make me aware of what had happened."

Ash. In my opinion, I would not phrase this as it is. Why? There is implication of 'fault'. Personally, I'd rewrite thus, "I made you a 'no fault, without prejudice' offer despite your failure to notify me there was a problem until after it had be rectified by a third party."

"I have spoken to the company who carried out the repair who confirmed it was not done through incompetence but that during plunbing tasks this can happen. They said that they advised you to get me back to carry out the repair but you said no and that you wanted to take me to court to get the money, I have this call recorded and can provide transcripts of the conversation."

Similarly this para. "Having spoken at some length with those you engaged to rectify the issue, they confirm they advised you to ask me back to rectify the issue. They made a point of explaining that you stated your wish was to take me to court to get the money. This conversation was recorded and I shall be providing transcripts at disclosure."

The point is to NOT admit or even hint at admitting its your fault, but to become slightly more confrontational and not read like you're going to roll over.

I just now wonder if you talk about counterclaim at this juncture based on the time and effort and cost of defending yourself against this erroneous claim?

 

[hammers4spanner]

Reading this thread makes me wonder why do we bother doing plumbing ?
I hear more and more now customers moaning and wanting compo for literaly anything now not to mention im going to call gas safe blah blah blah.

 

[armyash]

Reading this thread makes me wonder why do we bother doing plumbing ?
I hear more and more now customers moaning and wanting compo for literaly anything now not to mention im going to call gas safe blah blah blah.

If once it happened I was told and got to sort it out, id have no problem. I'm the last person to try and screw someone over. I'm surprised I didn't just hand the money over, a year or 2 ago I probably would have done no questions asked but I'm sick of people taking the mickey for one reason or another. The arrogance to say give us so much money or it goes to court is too much. If I lose and its costs me the fine.

 

[Best]

Try to also compress the letter into less words.
There is only so many words and sentences a person will take in fully, - even Judges (who are experts at reading) will glaze over and lose some of the message.

 

[hammers4spanner]

I know what you mean everyday is people pushing for more and more quizzing everything and armed with google.
May wrap this up if i tind the right job

 

[Ric2013]

You mean 'good practice', not 'good practise'.

I agree with what others have said about not admitting fault. It sounds as if you are accepting that you caused this damage, and we do not know that to be the case for a fact.

I think it would be worth making it clearer that when you left the site, the work was complete and there was no leak evident and that you left on good terms, so it seems odd that they did not want to let you in the house again. As, had I not heard the background, I might assume from that letter that you had left an evident fault or had argued before leaving the site.

Taking YorkshireDave's advice and mixing it with my ideas, I would be inclined to change that first paragraph to something more like:

I made a 'no fault and without prejucide' offer of £150 as a goodwill gesture. I believe this was a fair offer under the circumstances: I was not given an opportunity to inspect, or allowed to repair, the leak you claim I have caused, and was not even made aware that there had been a leak until after you had had it rectified by a third party.

 

[armyash]

Will rewrite this evening with all points taken on board and run by you all. Will try and keep it short. Thanks

 

[Best]

Will rewrite this evening with all points taken on board and run by you all. Will try and keep it short. Thanks

Armyash, expect to do several drafts before you get it reading properly.

 

[armyash]

Hello everyone, I hope you are all enjoying your weekend. Its taken me longer than expected to get the letter finished.

Here is another letter, I have taken in to account the points you have all made (which I really do appreciate) and edited the letter accordingly. As already pointed out the letter is quite long but I dont know what to take out because to me it all sounds relevant, if anything I could make it longer! As you all read this you will see the info different to me so whatever may seem irrelevant or needs changing, im open to criticism so hit me.


Dear Ms

Thank you for your letter dated 16.9.18, as requested please accept this letter addressing the points you have raised.

I made a 'no fault and without prejudice' offer of £150 as a goodwill gesture. I believe this was a fair offer under the circumstances: I was not given an opportunity to inspect, or allowed to repair, the leak you claim I have caused, and was not even made aware that there had been a leak until after you had had it rectified by a third party.

Having spoken at some length with those you engaged to rectify the issue, they confirm they advised you to ask me back to rectify the issue. They made a point of explaining that you stated your wish was to take me to court to get the money without making me aware of the issue first. This conversation was recorded and I shall be providing transcripts at disclosure.

I have taken legal advice and I have been told I should have been given the opportunity to rectify the fault within a reasonable time frame. This is called 'repeat performance'. If you didn't want me in the property then I still should have been made aware of the problem and a chance to discuss repairs and come to an agreement. I still hope to resolve this matter amicably but I feel what I have offered is more than fair considering everything.


The first I heard of the matter was when I spoke to Mr... (of adress...) on 11th May 2 months after the toilet was fitted. I asked why was I not asked to make any repairs and he said it was because you didn't want me in the property. If you didn't want me in your property to carry out the repairs I still should have been made aware a repair was needed and given the chance to discuss repairs to be made by another plumber. That never happened, Mr... Said its a case of hand over the sum £300 or you will take me to court. I asked for time to get back to him. This caused me considerable distress as I felt I was being blackmailed.

This is the first correspondence from yourself in the 6 months since I fitted the toilet. All other discussions have been between myself and your partner Mr... who said you didn’t want me to do the repairs.

The toilet was not fitted in a faulty way. It was connected to the existing plumbing and the pan fixed using the designated fixing points on the pan. I had no reason to expect there to be heating pipes under the tiled floor as there had just been a pan fitted there previously and it is not good practice to fit pipes where a pan will need to be fixed. There was no sign of a leak as I fitted the toilet and when I returned a few days later to board up the cavity wall there was still no sign of a leak. There is no realistic way I could have checked for pipes being there.

Not a big deal but for any other correspondence I'd like to make you aware that my surname is... and not...


Yours sincerely