Being sued by Cowboy Builders - please help *** Claim Struck Out ***

[unclebulgaria67]

Might have missed this from the thread. But what legal advice have you obtained from a solicitor ? Or has the advice only been obtained online ?

 

In this situation, if you have not seen a solicitor, I think it might be worth booking a free half hour consultation meeting, which many will provide.

 

Have you any Home Insurance legal cover, that would help you in this situation ?

[dx100uk]

Well I have a response to my email / recorded delivery letter.

 

The retailer says my email has been forwarded to the debt collector and they will not respond to any further communication from me.

 

The debt collector says:

 

 

You have today been made aware that we have conduct of this case on behalf of our client.

 

Our client has offered to remedy any agreed faults and or defects and or give credit to the value of the remedial works, in addition to the guarantee requested.

 

You have refused our client entry to complete the work, or to accept a mediated settlement and it therefore appears that you are proposing to pay nil for the works completed and are simply attempting to evade your debts.

 

You appear to have a better than average understanding of debt recovery proceedures. Is this as a result of legal training or perhaps lots of experience of evading your liabilities?

 

 

You have now been put on notice that we intend to resolve this situation to our clients satisfaction."

 

They have not responded to any of the questions which I raised.

 

Also, their clients did not offer to remedy any agreed faults, or offer to give credit to the value of the remedial work. They did offer an insurance backed guarantee but it did exist and I sent evidence of this to them and asked for their comments but they never responded.

 

We did refuse entry to complete the work but only after we had allowed numerous opportunities to remedy and each time they came back they made more of a mess. We have never been offered mediation.

 

Do I wait for the 7 day deadline which I gave them to pay or do I start the court process now?

 

Thanks all

 

what load of old twaddle

 

dca's have no legal powers to do anything bar fart!

 

dx

[wonky100]

The only advice which I have received is from Trading Standards, Consumer Director and my household legal advice line. My household legal cover won't assist as the cost of the job was more than £5,000 including VAT. I have also been doing a lot of googling! Fiinally one of my neighbours works for the CPS and I sometimes catch the train with him, so we have been discussing this situation.

[martid12]

subbing.

 

im angry just reading this!!

[ihateyes]

i cant believe what they have said... i thought there statement is a bit libelious there..... "Is this as a result of legal training or perhaps lots of experience of evading your liabilities?

 

"

[harrassed senior]

I would certainly challenge that, write and demand an immediate, written appology on that point alone, just say all other points are being dealt with by various avenues, and leave it at that!

[Undercover-Elsa]

These guys are writing their own rule book. The OFT/TS MUST pull them up on their behaviour.

 

Here's the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines for your reference, Wonky, also the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

 

Elsa x

oft-debt-collection-guidelines.pdf

oft-cputr-guide.pdf

[wonky100]

That's not the only libelous thing that they have written. I can't quote exactly 'cause the letter is in a file at work, but they also said that we had no money and were unable to pay the "debt".

 

I don't want to "evade" anything. I've wanted a conservatory for years, it was my dream, I'm a real home bird. If they'd done the job properly I'd have gladly paid and would never have taken up the issue with my credit card company. If the job had been done properly I would probably have never found out that they'd lied on so many fronts. Although like other customers of this retailer who have paid, I would have still been without any electrical certificate or guarantee.

 

Been out for several hours this morning just to keep out of the way. Back for some lunch, but downstairs windows are locked as are the doors. Out for a few more hours later until OH returns from work. Why should I have to live like this????

[ihateyes]

you shouldnt..... i would email dominc littlewood - dont get done get dom..... im sure this is the type of case he would love to take on....

i also notice from his last 2 series when he tackled small firms, usually they went out of business

[wonky100]

Have spoken to OH and we have decided to post the debt collectors details so that we can get as much help as possible.

 

They are Opus Agency Ltd in Liverpool and their reg no is 7242396, according to Companies House they only set up in October 2010. They do have a website. The vehicle that the thugs came in is registered to another firm called DFW in Liverpool. We don't know the connection. I googled DFW (could only find a DFW Sales Ltd in Liverpool) and it would seem that the Director of this firm is also the Director of 4 other firms. I can't find a website for any of these companies or tel no. It looks like one of these other firms is a security firm! But then I could be completely wrong.

 

Touch wood, we haven't heard from the debt collectors today, but then again I've been in hiding all day!

[ihateyes]

im sure there is already a lengthy thread on opus here... but now i cant find it!

[panther12]

Well I have a response to my email / recorded delivery letter.

 

You appear to have a better than average understanding of debt recovery proceedures. Is this as a result of legal training or perhaps lots of experience of evading your liabilities?

 

My reply to that would be; My knowledge is down to good education, thank you for the compliment, unfortunately the same cannot be said about you judging by the inaccurate twaddle you spew. Or something along those lines.

[wonky100]

Thank you Panther12, I love your suggestion. But for now I think I'll refrain from sending such a response, as tempting as it may be.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Would put them in their rightful place tho:madgrin:

[Undercover-Elsa]

Wouldn't it be ironic to employ them to chase your builder for the deposit

 

Going out for dinner shortly.

I'll have a wee check around on them tomorrow morning...

 

Elsa xx

[wonky100]

Have a nice night Elsa

[Undercover-Elsa]

Thanks Wonky, you too..try to put it out of your mind and relax for a while xxxxx

[Jasper1965]

Although this company have acted repugnantly it's my opinion that the matter isn't as clear cut as it seems.

 

As things stand you have a conservatory albeit poorly erected which you have by your own admission made very little payment towards.

 

The law provided you with a remedy and you chose not to use that remedy but instead to withhold the final payment and pursue a sec75 chargeback on monies already paid.

The remedy was for you to claim breach of contract and pursue for damages etc.

 

Withholding the final payment can be seen as a repudiatory breach in it's own right.

Charging back the payment directly without seeking to take court action against the contractor has effectively put you in a position whereby you were in repudiatory breach at a very early stage dependent on the terms of the contract albeit retrospectively.

 

The duty of the Court where there has been a breach of contract is to place both parties in the position they would have been in had the breach not occured.

 

I suggest that by virtue of the retrospective breach of contract incurred by the chargeback in the eyes of the Court the initial breach occured when you failed to make the first payment scheduled in the contract which presumably was a deposit to be paid before commencement of work.

 

had you not charged back monies already paid and simply witheld the final payment then again you were at risk of repudiatory breach dependent on the terms of the contract. It would have been for you to claim that you were witholding payment due to a breach by the supplier, and even that is murky practice in the eyes of a court.

Had you not charged back and had you paid the final installment then it's very likely that any court wold have found in your favour in the event you had sued the supplier.

As it stands, horrible though it sounds, it is possible that your behaviour could be construed as the initial breach of contract and it would not be particularly difficult once that had been established to portray you as an unreasonable party and seek to mitigate any counterclaim from you based on workmanship, time taken etc.

 

If I were the supplier of your conservatory I would be looking to enter a claim against you safe in the knowledge that any potential counterclaim for damages from yourselves is likely to be defeated by the simple fact that as it stands you have suffered no damages by virtue of the fact that you have already taken it upon yourself to reclaim all monies paid and withold further monies due effectively giving you an almost free conservatory.

 

I say all this not to play Devils Advocate or to criticise but simply to illustrate that this matter isn't as simple as you might believe and that any moral high ground you held was lost when you charged back the original payment(s). the law offered you a remedy but you chose to seek your own remedy, it's highly unlikely the law will offer you a second bite of the cherry.

 

Of course without seeing the terms of the contract we can all only guess at the finer points.

 

I also strongly suggest that you do not enter a claim for the cash deposit as this action could well ultimately lead to a very large counterclaim against you.

An electrical certificate costs under £100 and the insurance backed guarantee.... well you'd be surprised how little they can be worth in true terms, anyone ever heard of a claim on one?

 

So you would claim the cash deposit plus lack of cert and guarantee as damages, and the contractor could claim the entire cost of the conservatory plus damages and costs as a counterclaim and somewhere in the middle there's a dispute about workmanship and timing.

It could prove a very expensive "small claim" for you and I heartily suggest you seek specific advice from a solicitor before embarking on litigation.

 

If you enter Court as it stands then you have made a small cash deposit and nothing more, if the contract provided that you were to have made a payment prior to work commencing or staged payments then those payments have not been made and the supplier will argue that had those payments not been made at the appropriate time(s) then work would not have commenced/continued and materials would not have been supplied. Paying and then charging back later whatever the circumstances can be construed as worse behaviour than not paying in the first place as the contractor would then have been able to choose to withdraw from the contract without cost or with mitigated costs. Charging back has permitted the contractor to incur the full costs of the work without remuneration, and that gives them a cause of action.

 

Please be very careful with this.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Some valid points there, Jasper, but wasn't it Consumer Direct who advised the chargeback under s 75?

Also, wasn't the contract breached by the trader from the outset by virtue of the fact that they falsely claimed to be members of professional bodies?

This is currently being investigated and is a criminal offence, being a banned practice under CPUTR 2008. Wouldn't the courts take all this into account?

 

There is a lot more to this and it is difficult to advise without the full info, but I do know that Wonky is very conscientious about money and paying for the job wasn't as issue, had it been completed satisfactorily.

It's complicated by the traders consumer breaches, and the dodgy debt collection practices, but under normal circumstances wouldn't the way to go probably have been to get a quote from a reputable, registered builder to complete/correct the work done, then withhold the amount from the balance owed?

 

With regard to Opus, not found out much yet that you haven't found yourself, Wonky. DFW are a bit of a mystery. Opus probably contracted the home visits out to them. Sounds like they gained their experience working for Liverpool Loan Sharks. Ironically when you Google it you get loads of hits for Money Saving Experts "Debt Free Wannabes"!

 

Elsa x

[unclebulgaria67]

A very similar case was featured on Don't get done, get Dom or a programme he was on. I am pretty sure the legal advice was to have made some token payments for the contract, as by not paying, it played into the contractors hands.

[coledog]

I am also following this with interest.

 

I think that the behaviour of the DCA in this is appalling and has to be stopped immediately.

 

However, I am tending to agree with Jasper on the original dispute.

 

Several years ago I had a dispute with a builder who I had a contract with to restore my house after a fire. I signed invoices for the insurance company who paid the builder. However the finished work was appalling and despite remedial work and a lot of hassle, unacceptable. The Insurance company therefore paid the remaining balance to me directly to sort it out and left me high and dry.

 

I actually engaged a specialist solicitors and paid for a surveyor to do an independent report on the work AND LOOK AT THE CONTRACT. I also got estimates for all the remedial work and added all the costs together, including legal and surveys. This was far more than owed to the builder but I had a case built up. I therefore could account for the withheld money. To cut a long story short, the builder made threats and claimed 'added work' which was not in the contract but was far too mean to try and appoint debt collectors or pay for court action. He also claimed that he was not allowed to 'rectify the faults' but as the relationship was so bad and the 'remedial' work tried, unacceptable he had no case there. He also requested 'mediation' through the 'Federation of master Builders' but they are so much on the side of the builder I would not accept it.

 

This went on for so long as I kept receiving 'threats' from this guy, that it really had a detrimental effect on me and I actually did not want to live in the house anymore.

 

Just a warning that you really have to get your head round this.

 

To add

 

I always watch Watchdog or Dom, if it has anything to do with builders and the first thing they do is to get an independent survey. Appointing a solicitor is also good as you can tell these DCA **** that any communication on the matter has to go to your legal representative and it is out of your hands. Certainly bring yourself up to speed with all the advice on here, it will help if you do want to take legal advice as solicitors charge you for talking to them! Wish I had had some CAG help. BUT don't try and do this on your own and keep a record of any costs you incur.

[wonky100]

Without reading my old threads, not 100% sure what I have advised so will start from the beginning. This could be very long!

 

In October 2010 I signed for a conservatory to be completed "asap" although verbal instructions were Christmas 2010 and we have subsequent emails from the retailer to this effect. This was not our stipulation. In hindsight I feel that the retailer wanted the job completing asap in order to get the money. But a new room by Christmas sounded wonderful.

 

We thought we had signed up with A as that is the name on all the correspondence however, it seems like we signed with B as it is their reg no on the "contract". Both companies had the same Director. A no longer has a Director and is currently in the process of voluntary strike off. B has changed Director since. At the time of signing B was in the process of being struck off by Companies House. The common Director has also been a Director of another company which has also ceased to trade (details from Companies House). I have also established that this same man was the owner of another company but not a ltd co, which has also been closed down. I have done some digging, and if you ring businesses near where the original 2 businesses ran from to make enquiries, you will be asked how much money does he owe you???? I was given his home address and told to go put a brick through his window! I am NOT going to get involved in that kind of behaviour. If only we knew any of this before we signed.

 

When the salesman was in our home, he told us all tradesmen were employed by the retailer. So not true and this only became apparent once work started and we were advised differently by the builders. The builders were also threatening to down tools due to not being paid.

 

We were told they were members of FENSA. Not quite so straightforward. A was a member of FENSA, B wasn't. Our job was logged with FENSA by A, but our "contract" had B's reg no. FENSA also does not apply in the vast majority of conservatories. Whilst planning permission was needed, building regs weren't and FENSA would only apply if building regs were needed. But we were sold the fact that we had the protection of FENSA. Again, hindsight. I didn't know then what FENSA was! FENSA has since cancelled A's membership as they are in the process of strike off. B only became members in May 2011.

 

We were told that the retailers were members of GGF. Not correct.

 

We were told that they provided a 10 year insurance backed guarantee. Not correct in our case anyway because even had the job been completed and we paid we would not have got the guarantee and I have this in writing from GGFi. I am also in touch with other customers who have paid and have got their guarantee. Whilst I accept that insurance backed guarantees might not be worth very much, we shouldn't have been sold a product with a guarantee when there was no guarantee available. I forwarded the correspondence to the retailer for their comments and never received a response. I also know for a fact that there are other customers who have paid who have not had their guarantee.

 

Also, Trading Standards have seen a copy of the "contract". Trading Standards advised:

 

"The trader has now been advised regarding several criminal matters with the paperwork used by this company, namely the failure to provide cancellation rights and failure to disclose full company details. The trader has also been advised regarding membership claims of guarantee schemes or trade associations."

 

However, they subsequently advised:

 

"We have made enquiries regarding this trader and decided based on the circumstances that the most proportionate course of action was to advise them on this occasion. Because of the demands it places on resources and the long timeframe for a case to progress through the courts, prosecution is used only in the most serious instances when such an action would be in the public interest. Unless the matter is sufficiently serious, trading standards would normally advise the trader and give them an opportunity to rectify any issues first. The decision of whether to prosecute would take into account a range of factors including the number of complaints received, the circumstances and whether a trader has received any previous advice.

 

I appreciate that you are in a frustrating situation, but prosecution would in any case not assist the outcome of any civil claim. As we have discussed previously, the issue at the centre of any civil claim would be the standard of the workmanship and this is not a criminal matter. Details of this trader have been passed to trading standards where this company is based, for their information."

 

I have also been in constant contact with Consumer Direct who did not advise us to pursue a claim under Section 75 however they were aware of this course of action and did advise thank goodness you paid with a credit card.

 

I am not actually sure if I have had my monies refunded under Section 75 or not. I asked the credit card co for assistance as the retailer kept demanding payment when the job wasn't complete and I feared that if we did pay then the job would never be completed. I asked the credit card co for their assistance and they said they'd give me my money back providing I sent them all correspondence and sent the retailer a letter advising that they could come and remove the structure subject to a full refund, which I did but unsurprisingly I never got a response.

 

The credit card co say they have issued a charge back but consumer direct has advised that as it was a credit card payment it had to be Section 75. But if it was Section 75 wouldn't the credit card co have also been responsible for the cash payment and any consequential losses? Wouldn't Section 75 make the credit card co equally liable? Not sure if this would change matters, but am not entirely sure how this has been refunded I've asked my credit card co for a full written explanation as to what has gone on and on what basis they refunded but they won't.

 

I did make a small cash payment on the day of signing up and I guess this went straight into the salesman's pocket, but do not know this for sure. I also paid several thousands on my credit card on the same day and several thousands some weeks later when the brickwork was up to roof height.

 

At this stage we were a little worried with tradesmen threatening to down tools and the fact that when we went to make the 2nd large payment we were told this would have to be cash or cheque and they sent someone round to collect on a Sunday morning. We told them no, payment by credit card as this is what had been agreed. They said they were having problems with their machine and couldn't take payment. We stood our grounds and hey presto, the money was taken from my credit card the following day. So I don't know what the issue was there.

 

We kept being told that builders would be on site and they wouldn't turn up. On one occasion I came home from work mid morning and texted to ask if builders would be on site that day was told they were there - they weren't, I was texting from my kitchen!

 

We have kept all text messages exchanged with the retailers.

 

As everyone knows we then had bad weather in December. And these guys "finished" the roof in the snow and sub zero temperatures. They were finishing the roof on Xmas Eve. A friend came round who is a surveyor and told them that they shouldn't be doing the kind of work they were doing in such weather and they told him it was ok. At this stage we even knew that we had a leak yet they still plastered the room. We told them not to 'cause of the leak but they went ahead anyhow. They were at our home till 6pm on Xmas Eve, just what we didn't want and sent several texts to this effect. Why were they doing all this on Xmas Eve, there was no way even plastered that it could be used and even if the job had been done properly. The electrics still needed doing as did the floor yet these guys were insisting that we make the final payment on Xmas Eve. We refused. So that is the reason they were there till 6 pm, they wanted the money.

 

We were told that we had to heat the room everyday to dry out the plaster, so we did as we were told and our electricity bill for January 2011 alone was over £300! Yes January was cold and we did take some time off work, but we work at least 5 days a week as we are both employed plus we run our own business.

 

This is not meant to be a gloat we appreciate that there alot of people in financial difficulty, many no fault of their own, however, money was never the issue. But we do not have mega bucks either and also feel the pinch but not as much as others. I had PM to Undercover Elsa previously that whilst we have debt, a mtg, a loan, credit card we have not defaulted. I just feel that I now need to say this in the open forum as some seem to be questioning our integrity.

 

It became apparent that the room had several leaks and despite several attempts to remedy they couldn't, it continued to leak. So we appointed an independant structural engineer who criticises the structure from the plans to structure we had at the time of survey. It also questions whether the structure is fit for purpose and questions the longevity of the structure. The retailer were provided with a copy of the report. Several attempts later to fix the roof and it still wasn't fixed. The retailer also appointed an independant roofer to carry out a report on the roof. Although this wasn't the only problem it was the most worrying. We asked for a copy of this report but never received a copy. The retailer said that all was ok. However, we received a copy of report from the roofer and the price to put right was several thousands. Why didn't the retailer just sort?

 

We then gave the retailer 6 weeks notice in accordance with their terms and conditions and again several attempts to fix were made. Trading Standards then advised that we didn't need to give 6 weeks, we needed to give "reasonable" time. So we wrote to the retailer giving them a final opportunity to fix and asking that they put their proposals to remedy in writing. They never responded.

 

Another problem was that the damp proof course did not go all around the structure and where the damp proof membrane was it wasn't even a brick wide. So they had to do some digging out to put the damp proof in where it wasn't and they told us they were going to remove brick by brick to put a new damp proof membrane in. They didn't. What they did was chase out a bit of the brick work and touch up the membrane. So in order for the damp proof to be effective, it had to be wide enough on the inner wall, but there was no way of knowing this and there had to be no gaps between the original membrane and the touch up. Again, no way of knowing this. All we do know is that we have damp growing up the walls, so I guess the damp proof course has failed. We also have mould growing from the ceiling.

 

We told the retailer we were withholding final payment so that we could use this money to pay reputable builders to rememdy. We asked 4 builders to provide a quote for the roof alone and only 1 builder gave us a written quote. No one wants to sort out someone elses mess, even in this economic climate. We did appoint the builder who gave us a quote and he came round to refresh his memory and said he'd start work in a couple of weeks, this was 2 months ago, we haven't heard from him since and in the end decided not to chase until matter was sorted with the retailer.

 

Consumer Direct have advised that it could be argued that we should pay for materials but as the structure is questionable and it could be agrued that it needs to be knocked down we should only be liable for the wholesale cost of the windows,doors and roof. Although the leading on the windows is now peeling off. We had new windows in our living room almost 7 years ago and the leading in those windows look as good as new. Also, would another conservatory company want to reuse someone else's windows etc? Surely there is a mark up on these and another company would want that mark up?

 

The room does have furniture in it and yes the retailers are aware of this. We put it in writing to them that we were staging the room for my daughters birthday and then would remove whilst they continued but they haven't been back since. The furniture was ordered on the back of the retailers promises and we have no where else for it to go. It would have to be put in the kitchen / living room when work was carried out, but I refuse to live like that day in day out.

 

Prior to receiving our money back, we were advised that we were being "watched". On the day we were told we we watched our CCTV and saved the footage. We also have CCTV footage of builders making obsence gestures at the CCTV! Why? This was before the money was refunded. We also have CCTV footage of the debt collectors from Tuesday. Although it is not audible and does not cover the front door, it just got them walking down the drive (it's a car length drive, before anyone starts wondering if I have a large sweeping private driveway - no I don't, I live in a semi on a housing estate) and one of the guys taking photos of one of our cars which we use for our own business.

 

My first thread then tells of the solicitors letter and debt collectors letter/visit/phone calls.

 

I think I've told everything and you have lots of personal info too, which I didn't really want to give, but with our integrity being questioned felt it necessary.

 

We decided to threat with small claims action as at least it would bring the matter to a close whichever way it was decided. We had also previously told the Police this prior to this action being suggested on here. We just want the matter resolved. We are law abiding citizens (I don't even have any points on my driving license!) and would abide by any decision a judge made.

 

If anyone feels that I have missed anything out or wants more info, ask.

[Jasper1965]

Some valid points there, Jasper, but wasn't it Consumer Direct who advised the chargeback under s 75?

 

Yes but I remain to be convinced this was good advice. It is very drastic action as it retrospectively puts the contractor in a false position to their disadvantage and thusprovides a cause of action.

 

the better way to have dealt with it was to either decide on a percentage of work which is substandard and withhold that percentage from the final sum or to bring in a reputable builder to complete the work and charge back the costs of this from the original contract.

The second of these practices is widely used and can be very punitive on the original contractor as builders in these situations tend to be...... well "very critical" and price accordingly.

Of course before taking either of these two routes to remedy the original contractor should have the problems clearly identified and be given a good chance to remedy them themselves.

A dodgy builder would be foolish to pursue any alleged balance through the court when faced with a genuine and provable bill of costs from a reputable builder incurred by the home owner for putting the work right or finishing the job.

Withholding a percentage does give a contractor room for an action but they do risk having their dirty washing aired in public and that's often not worth the trouble or expense and the householder will have a defence of sorts ie proving the poor workmanship.

 

Also, wasn't the contract breached by the trader from the outset by virtue of the fact that they falsely claimed to be members of professional bodies?

This is currently being investigated and is a criminal offence, being a banned practice under CPUTR 2008. Wouldn't the courts take all this into account?

 

Yes they certainly would take all this into account if pleaded properly, it's despicable behaviour and all too common. the legal aspect as regards the contract would be whether the contract was ever formed perfectly more than whether the contract was breached (later).

establishing the initial breach may well be key to this matter.

 

 

There is a lot more to this and it is difficult to advise without the full info, but I do know that Wonky is very conscientious about money and paying for the job wasn't as issue, had it been completed satisfactorily.

 

Agree wholeheartedly about needing the full info and fully accept the OP's position. When things go wrong it can be a dreadful mess on so many levels and they have my full sympathy.

 

I've been on both sides of these disputes before and just wanted to illustrate that although primarily through the likes of Don't get Done get Dom, Rogue Traders etc we perceive the builder to always be in the wrong.

The Courts will however be no stranger to the alternate side of the story and you'd be surprised just how many people feel empowered enough by a consumer programme or urban myth to try it on. I could tell you some stories about alleged faulty workmanship, stories about client sabotage and just plain brazenness.

 

Now I don't for one minute associate Wonky with any of this but trust me it goes on a lot more than you might imagine.

Contractors can and do genuinely have to take people to court for failure to pay and Wonky needs to be aware that if the contractor does litigate then the value of any counterclaim Wonky might raise even if won might not exceed the value of the claim and it's likely to be held in a costs bearing track.

[wonky100]

Oh by the way, the retailer in their first defence re the chargeback or Section 75, advised that we were making full use of the room and they had photographic evidence. I have asked for the photos but my credit card don't have them. I spoke with a solicitor about this and he advised that this was an invasion of our privacy and a breach of our human rights. The conservatory is in our back garden which is enclosed by other private gardens all around. We have locked gates and the structure cannot be seen by looking down the drive. Part of it can be seen looking through our living room window.

 

And another thing! I hate my integrity being questioned!!! Yes every one has the right to their opinion, but I am such an honest person. Am really annoyed at this.

 

The retailer has already seen a solicitor and I put my defence to said solicitor. If the retailer has a strong case which is being suggested since I've had my money back, why am I not being pursued through the courts? Why contact a debt collector? Yes, I accept it costs to go to court but it will cost me also, although not very much if I do it via the small claims court. Even if I did and won, what do you think the chances of me getting the cash back? I wouldn't expect it at all, but at least it would draw a line under the matter.

 

Also, if I had paid the retailer and then taken them to court. Again, what do you think the chances of me getting my money? In my opinion they would have closed this 4th business down and then set up again, which the law allows them to do. I would then not have been able to pay to get the work fixed or have it rebuilt. Ok, so I wouldn't have the stress of debt collectors chasing me either.....

[coledog]

Wonkey I am not doubting your integrity at all and, I know, that this is a horrible situation to be in. You have two distinct problems here, the original dispute and the DCAs actions and I think that the first thing to do is to get rid of the DCA, although the two are connected.

 

If this company has a good claim, why have they not sort a legal remedy rather than appoint a dodgy DCA? I would appoint a legal advisor and tell the building company that all debt collection activity must cease forthwith until this matter has been resolved and any contact has to be via your solicitor. Have you reported the DCA behaviour to the police? I cannot remember, sorry, but you should do this and inform the retailer of the crime number. It may also be possible to threaten an injunction from the court, these are relatively easy to get and don't cost much.

 

Can you get your surveyor to recommend that the whole structure be replaced based on the failure you have had getting other builders to repair it? Can you get estimates for replacing the whole structure? Just informing the first builder that this is what you intend to do may force them to back off IMO

Edited June 12, 2011 by coledog