Not paying full bill until fully completed

cr1mson

Had some work done on house organised by one company but they used others who I will be paying direct.

Gave them a snagging list and a lot of the work has been completed but not all. This is partly due to me as had visitors so they couldn't come then.

Got an invoice from all the tradesmen today but don't really want to pay it all until all completed. However appreciate that bulk of work been done and goods have been supplied.

The stuff left to be done probably includes all of the trades so thinking will pay all the invoices but less 10% does that sound reasonable? Or should I just take it from invoice of company organising? Or if not what would you suggest?

Doozergirl

You should have agreed this before they started work.

You'll need to agree it with the trades individually, given that you have several different contracts, not just one. And pay as they complete their own snagging lists.

cr1mson

Doozergirl wrote: »

You should have agreed this before they started work.

You'll need to agree it with the trades individually, given that you have several different contracts, not just one. And pay as they complete their own snagging lists.

Thanks I wasn't aware how this it was going to work had just assumed I would be invoiced by the main contractor. I was aware he would be using others though. Main contractor is organising the snagging list and some things not clear who will be doing it.

Say for example pipes need boxing in after boiler replaced is that joiner or GasSafe engineer as he did install?

I was going to just not play the main contractor's invoice in full as he is organising snagging but as the others will be doing the work will lose leverage.

System

If you're using a main contractor, why are you paying his subcontractors directly?
And if you are having to organise them all individually to do snagging, what exactly is the role of your main contractor? Do you have a formal contract in place for the works?
10% is a large retention to hold on, you won't get anyone agreeing to that, especially if it's not been agreed prior to starting.

cr1mson

the_r_sole wrote: »

If you're using a main contractor, why are you paying his subcontractors directly?
And if you are having to organise them all individually to do snagging, what exactly is the role of your main contractor? Do you have a formal contract in place for the works?
10% is a large retention to hold on, you won't get anyone agreeing to that, especially if it's not been agreed prior to starting.

I am not organising directly main contractor is organising all the snagging. No idea why paying separately to be honest.

No contract apart from quote as not a big job.

Bit confused as comment regarding agree to as would just send funds less any retention so wasn't looking to agree it just whether reasonable. Definitely don't want to pay full amount until all done!

System

You aren't really entitled to hold back funds unless you agree before starting work, so you now have to get the tradesmen to agree to that.
You can't just turn around at the last minute and say you are withholding 10% of their bill without agreement.

Furts

I suggest here retention and snagging are getting confused. Being pragmatic, on any run of the mill domestic work one should be saying to the builder/contractors you will be paid when the work is completed to an agreed standard. On commercial contracts 2.5% retention is common but that is once the work has been completed. It covers for future eventualities.

Look at matters in a different light. Suppose the electrician is owed £700 and you withold 10% which is £70. When Buildings Regulations come in for an Inspection and there is no Electrical test Certificate because the work has not been finished it would cost a lot more than £70 to get another electrician in, or for the original electrician to come back and sort every thing out. My point here is do not pay until the work is completed and hold back a nominal sum if this has been previously agreed.

However I am not being harsh to builders. Were I one of those in this case I would be really cheesed off for the client to say you cannot turn up to honour your commitments because I have visitors! So come on OP, you need to negotiate matters in a friendly manner now.

System

The thing is, if you are paying through the main contractor then withholding a smaller percentage of overall work, it puts all the honous on the main contractor to get the snagging sorted as it's their money and their profit being withheld, if you do it on a trade by trade basis I'd say there's a much higher chance of them not coming back for a few quid to sort snagging items

cr1mson

Yes agree some confusion here the understanding was that the work was to be completed to an acceptable standard by certain date. It wasn't and on 3 separate occasions I have given access for some of the work to be completed. It was one occasion Easter Sunday when I wasn't able too give access especially as given short notice but whilst might have slowed things down don't think was being too unreasonable especially as work should have been completed by then!

It seems wrong to pay it all as original agreement has not been met but equally to not pay any as most of work done seems wrong too! Am in Scotland so it would be Building Warrants would have needed but checked and work is exempt.

ceredigion

the_r_sole wrote: »

If you're using a main contractor, why are you paying his subcontractors directly?
.

cr1mson wrote: »

No idea why paying separately to be honest.

Because of CIS

cr1mson

Thanks for all the help. Will have a chat tomorrow. I think may have confused again with use of phrase contractors and sub contractors!