Builders overcharging for radiators

somethingcorporate

It's a civil dispute you should have a look at what theft actually means - there is no intention to permanently deprive in this instance - here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft.

I am sure a judge would look quite severely at a tradesman that is as slapdash as not to provide any kind of paperwork upfront, the expectation would be higher than that of the consumer given it is his trade.

All the above would only happen if the consumer stuck their head in the sand and ignored the builder and the courts, which is not what a sensible person would do and even if he won he would still not be granted access to private property to retain the rads.

keystone

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Just a point worth making to the OP I think given you said he had rights to remove the radiators without qualifying that he didn't have rights of access to the property.

You are correct. I should have done - however if said access is properly granted. Access should not be assumed (whilost the client is out) because if it was it would be trespass. Unless, of course, OP gave the builder a key and has not yet recovered same in which case there is an implied (if not actual) right of access until the OP either recovers the key or changes the locks.

So those rights to the radiators are pretty redundant since the OP can just tell him he is not allowed on their property.

But the right still exists you can't change that and that was the point of my post so not redundant in the slightest.

Cheers

keystone

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I am sure a judge would look quite severely at a tradesman that is as slapdash as not to provide any kind of paperwork upfront, the expectation would be higher than that of the consumer given it is his trade.

No sorry - they are both equally at fault. If they had made a verbal agreement on the price that would be just as binding contractually as a piece of paper. If they did not have a vernbal agreement on price and OP just told him to go ahead on the expectation of paying no more than he could buy them himself he is equally at fault for not clarifying the situation. Slapdash on both sides I will certainly agree with.

Cheers