Is it unreasable to pay this bill?

Fishingtime

I have a property that I let out.
I contacted an electritian in august, to do a electric safety cert for my new tennant.
I tried ringing him 4 times and left 2 messages on his mobile phone, to contact me as I did not know if he had done the work.
I left another message saying if you do not contact me in the next two days I will assume you have not done the work, And I will get someone else in to do it.
I only heard from him today nearly three months afterwards presenting me with a bill.
Should I just refuse to pay, as I give him enough chances to get in touch

Errata

Common sense dictates that before paying the bill you should have possession of the Safety Certificate.

prowla

I don't think there is a statute of limitations on the time to bill for work, but it would make sense to confirm that the work had been done (and to the required standard) before paying it.

latecomer

Surely the tenant could confirm whether he had done the work or not? Unless you gave the electician a key someone must have let him in to do the work.

And if he's done the work then you should pay him once you get the certificate regardless of how long its taken to send you the bill.

vaio

prowla wrote: »

I don't think there is a statute of limitations on the time to bill for work, ......

I thought it was 6 years, but I'm happy to be corrected

However if the OP paid someone else to do the inspection because she didn’t hear from the first guy then that’s a different matter and I don’t think she should pay.

DVardysShadow

Yoxford, your slipup was to leave a message saying that you would have to get someone else in - you should have written, recorded delivery or certificate of posting at least keeping a copy.

Having said that, I don't think you should pay and you should set out in a letter recorded delivery keeping a copy as much detail as you can of attempts to contact him. If the other guy was cheaper, you can offer him 'without prejudice' the difference in price.

bennybroadbean

vaio wrote: »

I thought it was 6 years, but I'm happy to be corrected

However if the OP paid someone else to do the inspection because she didn’t hear from the first guy then that’s a different matter and I don’t think she should pay.

A debt is always a debt and has no time frame on it, shame as it should do!!

Fishingtime

I did not receive the Safety cert until yesterday, nearly three months after he did it.
There was faults with the electric which needed fixing,if the house had burnt down I would not have been insured as the Insurance company would have said your safety cert says the wiring is faulty.
I paid someone else to check the electrics and also to rectify any problems.

Alan_M_2

I'd refute the bill on the grounds you had to have the work undertaken by someone else due to non response.

Did the alternative contractor provide you with a certificate?

hewhoisnotintheknow

i would tell him to go away, explaining that you had to get someone else in to be on the safe side, you incurred extra cost due to his bad admin

zzzLazyDaisy

bennybroadbean wrote: »

A debt is always a debt and has no time frame on it, shame as it should do!!

There is however a 6 year limitation period on suing for the debt in court, after which it becomes statute barred, unless the person admits the debt in which case time starts to run again from that date.

But in this case, I think there is at least an argument that the electrician did not do the work he was contracted to, since presumably he was engaged to carry out the safety check AND issue the certificate? I would have thought that, from the LL's point of view, without the certificate (or at least a report of some kind on the result of the safety check) there is nothing to bill for.

Although I'm confused about how the electrician gained entry to the house to do the check in the first place, if the landlord doesn't even know if the work has been done or not

EDIT apologies I have just seen that the certificate was issued, albeit after some delay