Ripped off By Builder

matttye

I'm surprised he wasn't arrested for criminal damage if he left the house in such a state. Presumably it was habitable before he started the work..

JohnnyJet

matttye wrote: »

I'm surprised he wasn't arrested for criminal damage if he left the house in such a state. Presumably it was habitable before he started the work..

You might think that, but all the police kept saying was that it was a civil matter, not criminal. You have to prove that he meant to do it from the start, which is nearly impossible to prove.

matttye

JohnnyJet wrote: »

You might think that, but all the police kept saying was that it was a civil matter, not criminal. You have to prove that he meant to do it from the start, which is nearly impossible to prove.

Criminal damage can be committed on a reckless basis.

The test for that is as follows: -

"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to:

1) A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

2) A result when he/she is aware of a risk that it will occur; and

3) It is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."

If this guy's workmanship was to such a low standard, he must surely have had some idea that he could damage your property even if he didn't actually intend to do it.

The police annoy me with their rubbish about insisting it's a civil matter. They should investigate and let a prosecutor (who actually knows the law) decide whether there's a prospect of conviction.

JohnnyJet

No one is more annoyed about the situation than me. I know he has committed many fraudulent acts and even presented some of them to the police. He even admitted to the police that he had purchased materials for another job using our money. The policewoman then decided that he was a "nice man" and the amount he presented was small so she would not persue the matter any further. If they were just able/willing to look at his accounts then I am sure I would be proved right. It was hard to get people to provide all the information that I needed.
The outcome is that with the initial outlay and the subsequent repair work I am over £150,000 out of pocket and there is nothing I am able to do about it.

matttye

JohnnyJet wrote: »

No one is more annoyed about the situation than me. I know he has committed many fraudulent acts and even presented some of them to the police. He even admitted to the police that he had purchased materials for another job using our money. The policewoman then decided that he was a "nice man" and the amount he presented was small so she would not persue the matter any further. If they were just able/willing to look at his accounts then I am sure I would be proved right. It was hard to get people to provide all the information that I needed.
The outcome is that with the initial outlay and the subsequent repair work I am over £150,000 out of pocket and there is nothing I am able to do about it.

That's theft (unless he managed to convince them he was planning to replace the money as there would be no intention to permanently deprive you of it).

There's a strong case that he has stolen the money you paid as well if he hasn't carried out the work he was contracted to do.

No idea what the police are thinking here... could you not try reporting it to someone else?

This is not dissimilar to going into a barber's shop and paying for a haircut, and the shop keeps your money but refuses to provide the haircut you paid for. It's clearly theft.

JohnnyJet

He was a very good con man, which is why he managed to convince me to part with so much money. I'm sure he was the same with the policewoman. He was claiming that we owed him money, despite us paying most of the fixed contract that he provided, then him removing the plumbing and other items because he decided not to do them. The net result being that he actually owed us money on the contract. I think he just managed to confuse her.
The builder had a limited company and when we persued him he simply closed his company down leaving the only possible route through the police with a fraud claim, the police struggled to understand the case due to the builder making it more complicated than it really was.

matttye

JohnnyJet wrote: »

He was a very good con man, which is why he managed to convince me to part with so much money. I'm sure he was the same with the policewoman. He was claiming that we owed him money, despite us paying most of the fixed contract that he provided, then him removing the plumbing and other items because he decided not to do them. The net result being that he actually owed us money on the contract. I think he just managed to confuse her.
The builder had a limited company and when we persued him he simply closed his company down leaving the only possible route through the police with a fraud claim, the police struggled to understand the case due to the builder making it more complicated than it really was.

"Where an offence . . . committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

- Ormerod, David (2011-07-28). Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law (p. 265). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Him being part of a limited company doesn't make any difference to the offences he has committed.

Unless you just want to let sleeping dogs lie, I would urge you to try the police again. It seems very clear to me that this guy has committed at least one offence; possibly multiple.

When you paid the guy, did you draw up any kind of contract or anything where it was agreed what work he would carry out and for what price? Any supporting documentation will assist.

JohnnyJet

Yes we had a fixed quote and I have many emails from him where I can prove he lied about the facts. He tried to get us to sign a new contract which we refused to do which would have put the price up a further £20,000 and with less work. My wife wanted to leave it but I am still bitter about it, I just don't discuss it with her. I want to have another go but my wife probably wouldn't, it was too stressful.
At the time I contacted all the building suppliers that I knew he had used to try and get a list of all his purchases so that I could cross reference them against a list he provided me with. That is when I found discrepancies with the information that he had given me.
This all happened over 3 years ago, but I remember listing all the counts of fraud that I though he had committed, I could dig it out and have another look. I simply need a way to get the police to look at his accounts, not sure if that is possible without going to court first.

matttye

JohnnyJet wrote: »

I simply need a way to get the police to look at his accounts, not sure if that is possible without going to court first.

It won't be unless he signs an authority allowing the police to do that. Chances of him doing that? Zero, I suspect.