Potentially being taken to court. What should I do?

[Scott_D]

The builder/tiler may have done it ripping up the old tiles. Bodged a repair and it's shown 2 months later

 

[armyash]

£300 is a modest sum and often a small amount like that is a ploy to get the tradesperson to just pay up to avoid any trouble.
Interesting she said she would accept instalments as she knows you don’t have much money (in her opinion).
That’s very telling, as she assumes she is getting cash payments from you, rather than paid from your insurance.

Her partner has said she has spoken to her home insurance company who have said if she made a claim through them, they would try to recoup the costs from me. I don't think she wants to go through them because it may push her premiums up as well as drag on.

With regards to accepting instalments, I think they feel as though they are doing me a favour as they think I have no money and by saying so they are showing themselves to be reasonable.

If they had called me as soon as the problem occurred I would have been there asap, sorted for free, and dealt with it as best I could, if I had needed someone to sort the tile out I could have done so for a fraction of what they have paid.

 

[armyash]

About the pressure drop, it is unusual to find but I have come across a pipe that had been screwed into actually effectively sealing the leak. I don't think you could get it to seal if you actually tried but it can happen. I have been to a leak that was caused by a screw in a pipe that was damaged weeks ago but only started showing after some time. If you were to drill through tile and screed but not into the pipe and then banged a screw through the lot and into the pipe, I could see it sealing up or at the very least only showing a tiny pinhole type spray which might not show for a while.

Just a thought as to the unusual length of time between the work being carried out and the leak showing at the boiler.

Ash, after your call to trading standards to see where you stand I hope you at least feel a bit better about this horrible situation. I really think the law is on your side with this one.

In the last 6 months I have had 2 or 3 jobs where a screw or nail have been plugging a hole and the leak has appeared as the screw/nail has corroded and no longer able to act as a plug.

 

[armyash]

The builder/tiler may have done it ripping up the old tiles. Bodged a repair and it's shown 2 months later

Its hard to say because the picture is not crystal clear. I'm not disputing it happened on the install I did but its s stupid place to run heating pipes and my biggest issue is how they have asked for the money with me not knowing anything about it.

 

[Old Account]

Howpossible is it that someone will be so lucky to find that central heating leak? As mentioned earlier it’s a needle in the hay stack thing. Only a person who knew there were pipes below the pan could find it so easily. That would be for me almost the last resort to look for a leak on a ch leak.

 

[armyash]

Only thing I can think is the plumber has turned up and asked if any work has been done recently and once they said about the toilet he's gone straight for that.

 

[Old Account]

Only thing I can think is the plumber has turned up and asked if any work has been done recently and once they said about the toilet he's gone straight for that.

Which plumber ? The people who did all the rest of a complete new plumber? If she would like to court she must have ask per the installer who fixed it for a plumbers report. Could you not get the report of her?

 

[armyash]

Which plumber ? The people who did all the rest of a complete new plumber? If she would like to court she must have ask per the installer who fixed it for a plumbers report. Could you not get the report of her?

Sorry I meant the plumber who has done the repairs following me.

I have asked for photos, dates, invoices, and a report of the work carried out.

 

[Welder]

For some balance here, and as already said, I've had a job about 9 months ago where a nail had gone through a heating pipe some years earlier. It only started leaking when the nail finally rusted away. The system had never been perfect, always losing pressure over 6 months or so but they simply topped it up and got on with life.

So, as we all know life is stranger than fiction and these things can happen. All that said though Ash is def being targeted and its being dealt with. She's made some rubbish assumptions and picked on the wrong dude in the wrong industry. Supporting one another is just something we all do I'm sure. I dunno about Girl Power, this is the power of the pipe slice!!

 

[oz-plumber]

Ash,
Don't get yourself worked up about the situation.

Just get the customer to send you through the photo's and invoices / reports from the people who did the repair job.

Contact your insurance company and forward the information on.

Let the customer know that you have placed the claim with your insurance company and to deal with them in the future.

If they can't produce the receipts for the repair works, then you have nothing to answer.

I had a situation a couple of years ago where I told the owner I would just pay for the repairs because the repairs were less than my insurance excess.
I asked him to send me through the invoice from the repairer. He said he paid the repairer cash and has no receipt or invoice.
I just told him I would pay the amount when I received a copy of the invoice, description of the works done and a receipt of payment from the person who did the works.

Never heard from him again.

 

[Best]

Problem is with contacting your insurance company is they might pay the customer the amount.
I would wait and see what bull the customer gives you in writing, invoices, photos, and then decide if her case is flawed.
No rules to say you have to use or inform your insurance.

 

[Keefy]

She really needs to provide you with more evidence. If that's the repair job in the photo then it is evidence of nothing without the damaged section of pipe being available for you to inspect. You'd then be able to determine if the hole was indeed caused by a screw or any number of other possibilities including being deeply scuffed by a trowel, a manufacturing fault with the pipe (I've seen brand new microbore with a quarter inch long hole in before) or corrosion caused by the screed/adhesive assuming the pipes weren't protected.

I'd stand my ground and demand the piece evidence.

 

[armyash]

Thanks oz and best, won't be using insurance for this. Im not stressing anymore. I'll see it through to the end, if it goes to court and I lose I can live knowing I didn't roll over.

They at no point made me aware of the issue and had repairs done before let to g me know then said its a case of 300 or we go to court. I legally should have been made aware and given a chance to do something about - my understanding so far.

Their argument is that I should have checked for pipes being there and that I didn't carry out the work with due care and attention. - I say I did.

I'd say it's stronger in my favour.

 

[rpm]

As someone said earlier, could just be a pin hole through age corrosion.
IF it were to reach court which I doubt it will I doubt if the repair man would be willing to be there to give evidence.

 

[Harvest Fields]

As someone said earlier, could just be a pin hole through age corrosion.
IF it were to reach court which I doubt it will I doubt if the repair man would be willing to be there to give evidence.

It was me mate. Wouldn’t put it past it being a pin hole. Especially with the state of the lagging on the other pipe.

 

[oz-plumber]

Hi Ash,

I was just inferring to use insurance as a ploy.

That way, you could ask the customer to send you through all the photo's and repair bills that were incurred on their behalf so you could forward them off to your insurance company.

[ The ball is their court then. It's up to them to give you the information you require to process a claim. Tell them you can't begin the process until you have all the information your insurance company requires]

You would also have the repairer(s) details and you could contact them about what the repairs were and what they think caused the problem. ( if you wish )

I personally wouldn't claim on insurance for the amount of money they are chasing you for. But I would make sure I have all ALL the information they have regarding their claim against you.

I would also infer, from now on, all communication via email.
Respond to them politely and promptly, if they call you, just ask them to email you.

 

[armyash]

Thanks to everyone so far for taking the time to reply.

After some good advice, I have sent them a letter, I have not heard back yet.

A week ago I spoke to the company who did the repairs, I spoke to the boss who priced the repair and he sent a someone to do it, he said I was extremely unlucky and could have happened to anyone. He has done work for them before and can't stand them, he said they are a nightmare to work for.

He also agreed not to pay out as there was no way of checking the pipes were there, at most he said maybe offer £100 goodwill gesture but don't admit anything.

He also agreed she should have come to me first. He seemed genuine, he spent more time complaining about the customer than talking about the job.

Will update when I can.

 

[SimonG]

If you had drilled it then you would have got wet.
Never gave you chance to inspect or repair.
Strongly worded letter including a paragraph with regard to taking a very dim view of a customer attempting to make fraudulent claims.

Did a bathroom about 4 years ago, 18 months after they wanted me to go back and replace the seal on the shower bath screen as it had gone mouldy. Fine, but chargeable as I hadn't supplied the materials. I received a snotty text, saved it and didn't hear a thing for 4 months. Then received a letter to say that the bath leaked and damaged the ceiling below because I hadn't installed the screen seal or the bath properly. Wanted 750 for repairs.
I sent a letter, recorded delivery, with a transcript of the message they sent, that I believed they had incorrectly changed the seal and caused the leak and that if they wanted to pursue a fraudulent claim I would see them in court. Never heard a thing.

Some people are just a$$holes.

 

[armyash]

I have received a letter from the customer this week, I will update this afternoon.

 

[Harvest Fields]

I have received a letter from the customer this week, I will update this afternoon.

4 months after your last post on here about it? Or have they been in touch before this?

 

[rpm]

We will find out more this afternoon

 

[armyash]

Not been in touch since last post on here.

 

[armyash]

Hi, apologies for the delay. From all the previous posts we know the story, it's been 3/4 months since anything has happened.

I sent them a letter back in May/early June at a push, very polite and pretty much said I don't accept liability. The repairs were done before I was made aware there was a problem. I offered £150 as a 'goodwill gesture' but no fault accepted. I explained I had taken advice from trading standards etc and the 'repeat performance' factor that I didn't get the opportunity to do goes in my favour.
The fact that she didn't want me back in the house is neither here nor there, she cant have it both ways. She can't get repairs done without me being aware of the issue and then come to me for the money. If she didn't want me to do the repairs she had to tell me that and I should have been given a chance to agree to anything being done.

All I've received are the photos I've posted on here and an invoice from the plumbing company who repaired the pipe which is £340.

The letter dated 16.9.18 from (1st time contact from her and not the boyfriend) says that she wants £450 to cover the total cost of repairs or she is taking me to court. It's all worded politely. She says if it goes to court she will also be claiming court costs and compensation for the inconvenience caused. She says thank you for the offer of £150 but doesn't think that is reasonable. She has given me 30 days to respond or she will be taking court action..

 

[ShaunCorbs]

go to court then but the same will happen if you win plus lost work expenses at x amount

 

[ShaunCorbs]

400 a day seems fair

 

[Harvest Fields]

go to court then but the same will happen if you win plus lost work expenses at x amount

As above really mate. But you will be claiming for the inconvenience, court costs and loss of earning for the whole time you are in court. The slackness in their time responding back to you will also go in your favour.

 

[Harvest Fields]

400 a day seems fair

I would work as hard as possible between now and then. 8 x your hourly rate should do it

 

[Best]

Yes, go to court. In reality that is, prepare for court with a reply letter.
It is a game of bluff usually and both sides wait to see who gives in first.

You need to do a reply letter to their latest letter , just stating very politely a repeat of your side of the story, how you should have been informed instead of being accused of unsubstantiated damage long after your work.
Repeat that your £150 was a goodwill gesture only, without any liability on your part, and now that it has been rejected you now withdraw the offer.
Do mention you believe you have been unfairly treated and ignored.
Do as Shaun said and say you will be claiming for lost earnings and expenses.

 

[Harvest Fields]

I also think it is vital that the time has passed for the £150.00 gesture. I would write your reply and see what they say. Might be worth getting in touch with someone in the law know how, just so you are prepared in the event they follow through with the threat.

 

[Best]

I also think it is vital that the time has passed for the £150.00 gesture. I would write your reply and see what they say. Might be worth getting in touch with someone in the law know how, just so you are prepared in the event they follow through with the threat.

Yes, I think best to always retaliate with a very polite but hard response, reversing the points made against Armyash and putting the customer under the same treatment.
The £150 offer was a risky one because it infers admission of some responsibility, so I would repeat it was only a goodwill gesture and generous considering I have only had a couple of photos and apparently a third party report a long period after I had done the work, with total refusal for allowing me any involvement including opportunity of notification or viewing of any allegation.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

It's like a game of chicken most times

 

[Best]

Ok Armyash, - are you a chicken - or a man?

I look at it as small money that people assume you will rather pay than be taken to court.
I would call their bluff and on a principle, pay them nothing, should I cost myself at least that amount in lost time

 

[armyash]

Excellent advice from everyone once again. I understand the goodwill gesture was risky but it was crystal clear there was no admission of fault.

I will get a letter written up this week and I will post it up on here before I send it.

I feel things are more in my favour, I realise it's possible I can lose if it goes to court but I would rather lose in court, pay whatever they say than roll over now and give them money without a fight.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

Excellent advice from everyone once again. I understand the goodwill gesture was risky but it was crystal clear there was no admission of fault.

I will get a letter written up this week and I will post it up on here before I send it.

I feel things are more in my favour, I realise it's possible I can lose if it goes to court but I would rather lose in court, pay whatever they say than roll over now and give them money without a fight.

TBH I don't think it will end up

 

[armyash]

TBH I don't think it will end up

I hope so but I think she is arrogant enough to see it through.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

I hope so but I think she is arrogant enough to see it through.

Hopefully the husband can talk some sense into her

 

[Harvest Fields]

Yes, I think best to always retaliate with a very polite but hard response, reversing the points made against Armyash and putting the customer under the same treatment.
The £150 offer was a risky one because it infers admission of some responsibility, so I would repeat it was only a goodwill gesture and generous considering I have only had a couple of photos and apparently a third party report a long period after I had done the work, with total refusal for allowing me any involvement including opportunity of notification or viewing of any allegation.

It’s what I hate most about this industry. Engineers to willing to slate each other, rather then stick up for each other. Completely winds me up to my core.

TBH I don't think it will end up

neither do I and to be honest you would have to be really unlucky for the court to not see what has happened here.

 

[Best]

It’s what I hate most about this industry. Engineers to willing to slate each other, rather then stick up for each other. Completely winds me up to my core.

It would have been fair enough if Armyash had have done something that was clearly incompetent or cowboy work,
but drilling a newly tiled floor where you were asked to fit a toilet was just an unfortunate incident that a pipe happened to be below the exact spot. (If he actually did cause the leak).
The position of the holes to be drilled in the floor would have been most likely with little, if any, choice of position.
And any pipes should ideally have been not installed below where a toilet could be and to a decent depth.
If I had have been the trade coming to find the leak, I would have told the customer it was an unknown risk to the plumber and therefore not his fault really

 

[Harvest Fields]

Agree mate

 

[armyash]

It would have been fair enough if Armyash had have done something that was clearly incompetent or cowboy work,
but drilling a newly tiled floor where you were asked to fit a toilet was just an unfortunate incident that a pipe happened to be below the exact spot. (If he actually did cause the leak).
The position of the holes to be drilled in the floor would have been most likely with little, if any, choice of position.
And any pipes should ideally have been not installed below where a toilet could be and to a decent depth.
If I had have been the trade coming to find the leak, I would have told the customer it was an unknown risk to the plumber and therefore not his fault really

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.

 

[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.