Unpaid invoice.

shortcrust

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I have no legal knowledge, but I would have thought the fact that he was working in the capacity of his day to day business, that he suspended most other work in his business for that period and has documentary evidence to show that he had little other income for that time would go a long way toward demonstrating this.

It is a MASSIVE leap from that to a court deciding that a contract was in place. People take time off work all the time for all sorts of reasons, and builders frequently do work for free for relatives. There are so many other possible explanations for the circumstances the OP describes.

marliepanda

shortcrust wrote: »

It is a MASSIVE leap from that to a court deciding that a contract was in place. People take time off work all the time for all sorts of reasons, and builders frequently do work for free for relatives. There are so many other possible explanations for the circumstances the OP describes.

Agreed. As its all he said she said the mum could say that she did all sorts of other things in return for help with the building.

Also, if youve taken 9 months of little income to work for someone, you dont usually wait so long before asking for the money.

Dox

How much money is involved?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

shortcrust wrote: »

It is a MASSIVE leap from that to a court deciding that a contract was in place. People take time off work all the time for all sorts of reasons, and builders frequently do work for free for relatives. There are so many other possible explanations for the circumstances the OP describes.

People rarely take nine months off work to help relatives though.

I am not saying it's will definitively win the case, but a judge with any common sense would have to be influenced by it. It's simply not sensible to assume someone would take nine months off work to help someone out and then decide to take them to court for money.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

marliepanda wrote: »

Agreed. As its all he said she said the mum could say that she did all sorts of other things in return for help with the building.

Also, if youve taken 9 months of little income to work for someone, you dont usually wait so long before asking for the money.

I don't think there is a "usually" in this case.

The alternative is that the OP's husband did agree to take nine months unpaid to work on the parent's house, then decided to try and take them to court on false pretences. Does that seem more likely to you?

She could claim she did "other things", but those would be downright lies she couldn't prove. As I assume we are talking tens of thousand of pounds here, looking after the kids a couple of times won't cut it.

shortcrust

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

People rarely take nine months off work to help relatives though.

I am not saying it's will definitively win the case, but a judge with any common sense would have to be influenced by it. It's simply not sensible to assume someone would take nine months off work to help someone out and then decide to take them to court for money.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I don't think there is a "usually" in this case.

The alternative is that the OP's husband did agree to take nine months unpaid to work on the parent's house, then decided to try and take them to court on false pretences. Does that seem more likely to you?

She could claim she did "other things", but those would be downright lies she couldn't prove. As I assume we are talking tens of thousand of pounds here, looking after the kids a couple of times won't cut it.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I have no legal knowledge...

No kidding.

I think you're giving the OP false hope.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

shortcrust wrote: »

No kidding.

I think you're giving the OP false hope.

Well, I am aware the burden of proof in a civil case is far, far lower than in a criminal court.

If the OP went into a civil court with documentary evidence they say they have and were straight and convincing, while the mother had a flimsy story she couldn't support, that can be enough to win a civil case. Can't it? If it can't, tell me why instead of trying to be clever.

The argument that the mother might go in and tell a lot of very convincing lies is fair, and possible. If the mother is that awful. it's also very possible that she won't.

marliepanda

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Well, I am aware the burden of proof in a civil case is far, far lower than in a criminal court.

If the OP went into a civil court with documentary evidence they say they have and were straight and convincing, while the mother had a flimsy story she couldn't support, that can be enough to win a civil case. Can't it? If it can't, tell me why instead of trying to be clever.

The argument that the mother might go in and tell a lot of very convincing lies is fair, and possible. If the mother is that awful. it's also very possible that she won't.

Its not about a flimsy story.

Did you agree to pay for this? Mum says 'no'

Okay OP, do you have any proof that there was an agreement for payment for this work. No, but here's a picture of me doing it!

Whats flimsy?

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

marliepanda wrote: »

Its not about a flimsy story.

Did you agree to pay for this? Mum says 'no'

Okay OP, do you have any proof that there was an agreement for payment for this work. No, but here's a picture of me doing it!

Whats flimsy?

The idea that any reasonable person with their own family to support would spend nine months, virtually full time, working unpaid. That's simply not a credible story.

Assuming the OP is telling the truth, put the mother up in court to tell her story to a judge. Back it with the evidence that you worked full time on it for nine months. Would I guarantee a win? No. It's down to who the judge believes. Their evidence of an agreement is their own testimony.

If they had any evidence of asking for payment over the last six years, that would help - leaving it that long doesn't look great. Evidence always helps. But it's perfectly possible the mother won't even deny the truth when faced with it in court.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Basically, there is no dispute (we are told) that a substantial amount of work has been done. Nine months worth of work isn't painting a room.

It's only the familial connection that makes the OP's case in any way dubious.

My argument would be that the timescale and the substantial nature of the work means that the family connection is no longer important ...family or not, nobody gives up nearly a whole year to save their parents a bit of money. A retired parent might do it for his kids. Not the other way round. It's not credible.