Builder not finished job - but won't give keys back until he gets paid!

Cknocker

Technically the fact of not returning the keys is theft in itself, they are your propertyu as much as the stuff in your house, but whats to stop a tradesman copying your keys?

With the painting, was the spec to paint specific areas, eg walls ceilings and woodwork, in which case the rads were not included or was it to say "Redecorate generally" imn which case I would expect the rads to be repainted.

Regardless of that he never notified you, unless you said to him at some point "Can yiu repaint the rads" or similar.

The electrical certificate is a difficult one, ultimately you shouldn't have paid him the last invoice before you got it, but you didn't expect this!

If you can't get it from anywhere, you are probably looking at a retest and inspect from yet another electrician - more cost.

It makes you realise why construction contracts are generally as weighty as they are, when things are going right you tend to think "Why do I need all this?"

Anyone considering having significant building works done, should consider entering into a JCT contract with the builder. A minor works contract will cover most domestic jobs (Up to a £100,000), the form (Its more like a book now) costs about £15. The minor works contract is about 12 pages, where as the standard contract is over 100 pages now!

Shimmyhill

misgrace wrote: »

Sorry if I am coming across thick here, but if he has the OP house keys, and wont return them, then surely this is a matter for the police, if the house got robbed, or some damage was done, then surely the finger would point to the person who has the keys.

So if a tradesman has your house keys, and things go t*ts up, and the builder wont return them for whatever reason, how can this be a civil matter, the builder has house keys that does not belong to him, but to the OP.

The law is definately an !!!.....

It could become theft but the victim has to be permanently deprived - at them moment there is a contract dispute between the OP and the builder. The builder will say that he will give the keys back as soon as the rest of the money is paid and the OP vice versa. Until the dispute is settled there is not anything the police can do as its a civil dispute at this point.

Flip it over and the builder could say he is out of pocket for work carried out - again a civil dispute but easier to see why the Police wouldnt take it on.

This is why contracts need to be fully defined, assumptions by either party always cause grief

To the OP, have you asked for a breakdown of the extra costs ?

JasonLVC

I guess the simple answer is to just change the locks and the builder then has no chips to bargain with.

I'm surprised this is being seen as a civil mattter when he is permanently depriving someone of their right to live in their own home and in effect, blackmailing someone. Sure the police will not care, but that's not the point.

Any normal businessman would seek any cost dispute through the courts and of course, more fool the contractor for not having a clearly defined contract either to protect himself from disputes with clients.

The contractor has the right to remove his materials and to undo any work that he has not been paid for but has no right to access the property without permsision or to hold the keys to said property.

AdrianW2

JasonLVC wrote: »

permanently depriving someone of their right to live in their own home

That is a police matter, well actually depriving someone of their right to live in their own residence is a police matter, but isn't what is being suggested here.

wrt to the "not theft" bit, it's not quite as clear cut as other posters have suggested.

Worth pointing out to the builder that they are potentially liable for any thefts and/or damage to the property whilst the keys are in their care.

baldelectrician

I seem to recall that (in Scotland) this could be looked on as theft / extortion. This was ruled over 20 years ago that to deny someone use of their posessions / property was deemed as theft / extortion

This came about when clamping came in all over the UK and the lord advocate took the people who clamped his car and the ruling went that way

You have to pay someone for the work carried out, but take a deep breath and try to look at it from the other persons point of view, but get the locks changed first

Be reasonable, but don't let people take the urine

Shimmyhill

There is no intention to permanently deprive tho, builder is saying i will give the keys back when the bill is settled - it really is as simple as that.

Remember the Police deal with Crimes, criminal law - not Civil law. This is a Civil dispute.

The OP could put it in writing that if the keys are not returned within a set timescale (7-14 days is the norm) then the matter would be taken further. There would at that point be Police involvement, even so the builder could counter claim.

Of course if things were stolen while the builder had keys that is different, if house broken into then burglary, if the builder was to take items theft - both of course Police matters

I am not behind the builder, it seems he/she is taking the fact the contract is not defined to extract extra money.

AdrianW2

Shimmyhill wrote: »

There is no intention to permanently deprive tho, builder is saying i will give the keys back when the bill is settled - it really is as simple as that.

Intention is not always necessary, see Theft Act 1968 s6 or the entire Theft Act 1978. Then you're in the legal grey area of what constitutes treating it as his own. Not that that's particularly relevant here.

More practically, from my crime recording lessons, the caller is told to request the return of the item and to call back if it isn't. When/if they call back then the non-return of the item is, on the balance of probabilities, enough for a theft to be recorded. Whether the intention is to permanently deprive is then for the investigating officer and then the CPS to decide.

Shimmyhill

AdrianW2 wrote: »

More practically, from my crime recording lessons, the caller is told to request the return of the item and to call back if it isn't. When/if they call back then the non-return of the item is, on the balance of probabilities, enough for a theft to be recorded. Whether the intention is to permanently deprive is then for the investigating officer and then the CPS to decide.

Indeed, as i said above do this in writing and if not returned the Police would investigate it as a theft - still a tricky one as there is a contract dispute but Crime unit would look at both circumstances and decide if taken on as a theft.

Of course let's hope it doesn't get to this and can be resolved amicably ! I would ask for a breakdown of the extra works and then get some other quotes in to decide if the price is fair for a start !

Cknocker

IF Prav is in agreement that the builder did not price for painting the radiators and he wanted the radiators painted, he should of course pay for the radiators being painted, but not any rate the builder suggests!

With regards to the window plastering there is no claim, end of.

If the builder was incurring additional costs due to late delivery of the kitchen, what were the costs? Wbat was he doing instead?

The builder has no real claim from what I can see.

AdrianW2

Prav wrote: »

But then he turned nasty and now he's simply blackmailing me which is just unacceptable.

PS spontaneously woke up at 1.30am and can't go back to bed - hence the 2.30am reply!! I must be mad!

Sounds to me like you're feeling distressed, possibly also alarmed and harassed as a result of someone else's words or behaviour, and that they could reasonably expect you to be distressed. Might want to mention that if you do report anything...