Builder Charged Me 3 Years Later

Zandoni

LABMAN wrote: »

It was an accounting error no doubt...OP can't provide a receipt so it's 50/50 as to what the outcome would be I think. I haven't suggested at all that they should pay again. If I pay for something I get a receipt...always.

No way was it an accounting error, it’s very doubtful a skip company goes back 3 years over their accounts. I’d also suggest they may do s lot of cash in hand jobs, if they are the type to threaten people with bailiffs.

Zandoni

waamo wrote: »

Firstly why would a judge ask? It's entirely irrelevant. Accounting mistakes happen and they have attempted to rectify it within the correct timeframe. It won't be an issue.

Secondly it's a bit of a jump to suggest that the op should therefore pay. I see no hint of that suggestion.

The judge wouldn’t need to ask me, I’d tell him that I paid cash at the time and and I find it very strang that skippy suggests I haven’t paid three years later.

DoaM

Zandoni wrote: »

The judge wouldn’t need to ask me, I’d tell him that I paid cash at the time and and I find it very strang that skippy suggests I haven’t paid three years later.

If that was your sole defence then it would be a "he said, she said" situation, so the judge would decide on the balance of probabilities who he/she believed. You'd need somewhat more than that for a defence.

Zandoni

DoaM wrote: »

If that was your sole defence then it would be a "he said, she said" situation, so the judge would decide on the balance of probabilities who he/she believed. You'd need somewhat more than that for a defence.

Yes it is down to the judge who is believed but, it will help a lot that it’s taken three years to say they haven’t been paid.

DoaM

Zandoni wrote: »

Yes it is down to the judge who is believed but, it will help a lot that it’s taken three years to say they haven’t been paid.

You may think that, but that's exactly the point made earlier by waamo - if the claim has been brought within the statute of limitations then a judge may not care.

Zandoni

DoaM wrote: »

You may think that, but that's exactly the point made earlier by waamo - if the claim has been brought within the statute of limitations then a judge may not care.

But he also may care, so it’s a very good point to bring up along with the bailiff threats.

DoaM

Nobody is disagreeing that it shouldn't be part of a defence ... as the entire defence (as you'd implied)? .... stupid move.

waamo

I don't think the judge will give the slightest credence to it. They won't ask and won't care. I wouldn't even include it as a defence point. In saying that we are jumping the gun a bit, we are no where near that stage yet.

Zandoni

waamo wrote: »

I don't think the judge will give the slightest credence to it. They won't ask and won't care. I wouldn't even include it as a defence point. In saying that we are jumping the gun a bit, we are no where near that stage yet.

I don’t agree, I think the judge will definitely take it consideration. I doubt it will go that far anyway but, you can’t tell.

scd3scd4

LABMAN wrote: »

It was an accounting error no doubt...OP can't provide a receipt so it's 50/50 as to what the outcome would be I think. I haven't suggested at all that they should pay again. If I pay for something I get a receipt...always.

I also get a receipt but I don't keep them forever.