2006 debt being chased-threat to remove windows from house

lovinituk

duck_egg wrote: »

I'd ask for a deposit and cash on completion.

It's not as if the OP didn't try to pay.

"we chased and telephoned the company for 4 months we never received a bill for the first two windows or any communication from the company in question"

It's the company's own fault, they shouldn't be harassing anyone after such a long time lapse and write it off as their bad.

Mistakes happen but that doesn't give the customer the right to free goods. Of course they can try and keep the goods that don't belong to them but I for one hope the company owed the money go and rip them out. It would serve the cheapskate OP right.

AppleDap

redux wrote: »

Either this representation of willingness to pay was untrue, or an offer was made but then the process petered out, which constitutes communication and acknowledgement of the debt.

Once 6 years has passed (5year in Scotland), the debt becomes statue barred. Any acknowledgement of the debt after this does not change the fact that it is statute barred.

redux

AppleDap wrote: »

Once 6 years has passed (5year in Scotland), the debt becomes statue barred. Any acknowledgement of the debt after this does not change the fact that it is statute barred.

It being statute barred does not alter the fact that it is nevertheless a debt, or title to the goods still belongs to the supplier until paid, and this person has had no financial problems or job quality disputes which warrant not paying in full.

Posting this self-indulgence in amongst people with genuine financial worries is shameful.

AppleDap

I was just stating a fact, not posting a moral opinion.

CKhalvashi

AppleDap wrote: »

I was just stating a fact, not posting a moral opinion.

However the goods still belong to the supplier, and IMO they'd be more than welcome to remove them to offset the debt.

AppleDap

I'm not making any judgement on the original post or poster.

I am merely making it clear that a debt that has already become statute barred, cannot become unbarred as a post made by redux infers that it can become unbarred again by acknowledging it.

redux

AppleDap wrote: »

I'm not making any judgement on the original post or poster.

I am merely making it clear that a debt that has already become statute barred, cannot become unbarred as a post made by redux infers that it can become unbarred again by acknowledging it.

I did not say that, or certainly did not mean to imply (this word, not infer) it.

I previously hinted that perhaps the OP has been a bit selective in not telling us everything, and hence maybe there is a chance that it is not statute barred.

The reason I said this is because there is no clarity why the customer was chasing the supplier then eventually the supplier chasing the customer but no detail in between. If things were also happening in the middle then there may not be a 6 year qualifying period.

Put specifically, the implication in the OP here that there was no communication for 7 years is not a full declaration for the purpose of the current discussion, as the OP posted a question here previously, on receipt of a previous letter.

Additionally, read this post on that previous thread, which discusses ambiguities whether the limitation period starts from the end of the work or the presentation of the invoice or demand for payment.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63819616&postcount=9

It may be that one or both of these parties would be wise to take legal advice (more particularly the fitter, but also on a point whether there is 6 years between the buyer asking to be billed and that bill arriving). On the other hand just paying for the work could be a lot simpler and cheaper.

timbstoke

It's interesting to see how one poster can get a response of "CCA them, it's statute barred, let them whistle for their money" while another poster gets "why don't you just pay your debt" posts like the one here.

Of course they can't remove the windows. For this to happen, finance would have to be secured on the windows, and even then, it would be very doubtful, since they aren't windows anymore, they're fittings in a house.

Whether the matter is statute barred or not is another matter, but if they were to turn up and start removing fittings from OP's home, they would be committing a criminal act. If people could just do this, what would be the point in having courts?

poppasmurf_bewdley

timbstoke wrote: »

It's interesting to see how one poster can get a response of "CCA them, it's statute barred, let them whistle for their money" while another poster gets "why don't you just pay your debt" posts like the one here.

Of course they can't remove the windows. For this to happen, finance would have to be secured on the windows, and even then, it would be very doubtful, since they aren't windows anymore, they're fittings in a house.

Whether the matter is statute barred or not is another matter, but if they were to turn up and start removing fittings from OP's home, they would be committing a criminal act. If people could just do this, what would be the point in having courts?

Utter bunkum.

andyfromotley

No its not bunkum,

they are definitely not allowed to remove windows from your house for non payment. even if they only fitted em last week. (don't get me wrong, i think they should be able to! But they're not.)