Overcharged by plumber?

nickj_2

the jobs been done , your toilet is fixed to your satisfaction
yes you have been overcharged , so , put it down to experience and never ring the guys number again , also tell all your friends and nieghbours ... a good reputation takes years to build, a bad one spreads like there's no tomorrow

keystone

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I think you will find you are wrong on all counts.

I think you will find that cheque fraud is a criminal matter and stopping the cheque would be exactly that.

Cheers

keystone

plodder73 wrote: »

Stopping a cheque is not a criminal matter, if you contacted the police they would simply tell you it is a civil matter contact a solicitor, anyone who says anything to the contrary is talking out of their bottom. If you dont think that is correct make a call to your local police station that I guarantee is the answer you will get.

It is criminal when its fraudulent as it would be in this case.

Cheers

plodder73

keystone wrote: »

It is criminal when its fraudulent as it would be in this case.

Cheers

You are wrong, it would be fraudulent if she had written the cheque with the intention of canceling it and not paying the plumber. That does not appear to be the case here and in ant event the police would not ever get involved because you would never prove that intention, as I said before they will not get involved. It is a civil matter.

Canucklehead

And it rumbles on............

To the OP: always get a written quotation before authorising any works in your home and try to use trades recommended to you by a source you trust.

Chalk this one up as a lesson learned and move on.:doh:

Canucklehead

gas4you

Giving someone a cheque is legally the same as giving someone cash.

Banks offer to stop cheques if they are lost or stolen, not because one doesn't like the amount they have paid or changes ones mind.

keystone

Plodder - I am right. The plumber is entitled to payment for the work he has done. Stopping the cheque because OP has decided the bill is too high (even if it is which I agree with) deprives the plumber from the money he is entitled to for doing the job. Thats fraud and a criminal offence. Whether the police would actually be interested or not does not and will not change that fact. Just saying that the police wouldnt be interested doesn't make it less crimanl either. Are you arguing that much of the petty crime committed in this country is no longer criminal because the police won't be interested?

Yes the plumber could also pursue a claim in the County Court - its called Action on a Cheque. The OP would then have to prove that the plumber was not entitled to ANY of the money covered by the cheque. OP would lose.

Cheers

closed

When you say it didn't work at all when he left, you mean no water came out at all? Is there an inline valve in the pipework?

Did you try adjusting the screw or lifting the ballcock inside the cistern to stop the overflow before calling a plumber?

plodder73

keystone wrote: »

Plodder - I am right. The plumber is entitled to payment for the work he has done. Stopping the cheque because OP has decided the bill is too high (even if it is which I agree with) deprives the plumber from the money he is entitled to for doing the job. Thats fraud and a criminal offence. Whether the police would actually be interested or does not and will not change that fact nor does saying that the police wouldnt be interested either Are you arguing that much of the petty crime committed in this country is no longer criminal because the police won't be interested?

Yes the plumber could also pursue a claim in the County Court - its called Action on a Cheque. The OP would then have to prove that the plumber was not entitled to ANY of the money covered by the cheque. OP would lose.

Cheers

I am arguing that it would only be fraud which is a common name for Criminal Deception if she had written the cheque with that intention. Excuse the copy and paste:


There must be a deception which, according to s5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e. any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in deception offences). The defendant must obtain a service as defined in s1(2).


Enough of this legal chit chat, I actually agree with you she shouldnt cancel the cheque as she agreed the price. Nice discussing it with you though.

Plodder

keystone

plodder73 wrote: »

I am arguing that it would only be fraud which is a common name for Criminal Deception if she had written the cheque with that intention.

Yes I see but I am arguing that the deception occurs by the very act of stopping the cheque which to all intents and purposes is valid. That is to say the deception occurs after the event not before.

Excuse the copy and paste:

Bien sur.

Enough of this legal chit chat,

Indeed

Nice discussing it with you though.

Reciprocated.

Cheers