Cowboy Builders and smalll claims courts

I post on this board every day, not last year, and every poster has added positively to posts. You may have taken a dislike, but they are not trolls.

And how is that trolling, exactly?

Posts will always differ from each other. If someone is wrong about something, it's easy to set things straight. Including a link is often helpful.

Putting people down is not a way to build yourself up.

Doozergirl wrote: »

And how is that trolling, exactly?

Posts will always differ from each other. If someone is wrong about something, it's easy to set things straight. Including a link is often helpful.

Putting people down is not a way to build yourself up.

I have no interest in 'building myself up', whatever that means. I am trying to let the OP know that the advice to get an expert report could well lead to them losing the case, as it is against the protocols on the Justice website.

There are very specific things people need to do in this situation, and the Justice system sets them out.

Accusations of being a troll simply detract from common sense and also every day commercial sense.

OP paid cash for a job that will be judged as an attempt to avoid VAT. £59K on one private job in one year is almost inevitablly meaning the VAT threshold will be breached. A contract was not issued, and there are allegations of a defective ufh. Here it is said OP colluded with the builder to hide this from Building Control.

Call me troll - my shoulders are broad, but with these points it will be difficult to win a court case. The builder only has to say the customer discussed evading VAT, refused a Contract, wanted work hidden from the inspector, colluded on whatever...and so on and what do any sensible person think the Judge will think.

How does OP know the extent of defective works and what is required to put them right? That is why an expert report is required. It is to sort out the mess. It can subsequently be part of the legal mechanism if it goes that far. I say that far because OP expects the Court to sort all this out when I am not confident any good will come of this. Be realistic here. The Court will not deprive a builder of the tools of his trade so the dumper and all will be safe. The Court will not kick the builder out of his home. So this will be safe. The court will not seize a quarter of a yacht - simply because this is impossible.

OP persists in arguing how can they be expected to be an expert? Here the answer is blindingly obvious. If the work was undertaken as a commercial contract be it a council house build, or a Housing Association, or a new office block then a Clerk Of Works would be engaged (or a similar role and title/role.) Here OP has engaged nobody, and paid nothing to protect their interests. Even if OP now comes back and argues ignorance of this, then ignorance is no defence in a Court. So again this weakens any Court case.

Whist it almost far too late in the day to do so, this Clerk Of Works, or similar, would be the person writing the expert report. This person would also intervene to try to get both parties to see common sense. This is a common sense procedure that any savvy consumer would follow. If matters stagnate, or fail, a plan B may be needed. This plan could be a Court. Why Annie1960 maintains an expert report will weaken one rights is a mystery to me.

To assist all mse users, I would add the most recent expert report I commissioned from a Clerk of Works cost £400, and hey presto, the case never went anywhere near a solicitor or a Court. Basically the other party had no defence against the report - it was blindingly obvious what was wrong.

OP has paid £55K, my report cost represents less than 1% of this, yet Annie1960 says this is the wrong way forward.

We are not all slaves to the legal system - some of us are proactive and want quick, simple resolutions to issues. This is the basis behind my posts and my stance.

Sorry Annie1960 we will have to agree to disagree. In my defence I suspect I have been involved in vastly more building work than you have. Nobody knows everything, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of how the construction industry works.

Furts wrote: »

Call me troll - my shoulders are broad, but with these points it will be difficult to win a court case. The builder only has to say the customer discussed evading VAT, refused a Contract, wanted work hidden from the inspector, colluded on whatever...and so on and what do any sensible person think the Judge will think.

How does OP know the extent of defective works and what is required to put them right? That is why an expert report is required. It is to sort out the mess.

The Jutice system lays down very specific ways in which expert reports are permitted. The OP should not do this unilaterally.

It can subsequently be part of the legal mechanism if it goes that far. I say that far because OP expects the Court to sort all this out when I am not confident any good will come of this. Be realistic here. The Court will not deprive a builder of the tools of his trade so the dumper and all will be safe. The Court will not kick the builder out of his home. So this will be safe. The court will not seize a quarter of a yacht - simply because this is impossible.

What are your legal qualifications? I suspect none.

Sorry Annie1960 we will agree to disagree. In my defence I suspect I have been involved in vastly more building work than you have. Nobody knows everything, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of how the construction industry works.

You made a number of comments on my case last year where you tried to pass yourself off as someone who had expertise and knew what they were talking about. When I got proper advice, most of your comments turned out to be rubbish.

The OP is asking for legal advice and I have referred them to legitimate sources, having gone through a similar issue myself. If I had done what you had suggested I would have lost.

The OP may well be a vulnerable person from what they say, and using ad hominem arguments helps nobody.