Builder Charged Me 3 Years Later

waamo

Zandoni wrote: »

Why wouldn’t a judge ask why they waited so long to ask for payment. The answer because I have 6 years would make no sense, they’d go out of business if they don’t collect what’s due straight away. Most companies want payment very early in the process.

If the answer was "we couldn't be bothered" it would be fine. Similarly "cash flow" or "felt like it". The reason can be superficial and frivolous. Then that's the end of it.

They can simply choose to. In which case why bother asking?

Zandoni

waamo wrote: »

If the answer was "we couldn't be bothered" it would be fine. Similarly "cash flow" or "felt like it". The reason can be superficial and frivolous. Then that's the end of it.

They can simply choose to. In which case why bother asking?

Oh well you can have your guess and I’ll have mine.

unholyangel

Zandoni wrote: »

Why wouldn’t a judge ask why they waited so long to ask for payment. The answer because I have 6 years would make no sense, they’d go out of business if they don’t collect what’s due straight away. Most companies want payment very early in the process.

Why does it matter? Did the delay cause the money to be owed (if it is) or cause it to increase? Not from what OP has said.

Again, even with a statute barred claim, its up to the defendant to raise that point in their defence. Not up to the judge to make any defence for them.

Most judges will also take whats said to them at face value (sad but true).

So you've based your whole defence on 3 years (when the law permits 6) and even if you raise the point yourself and judge entertains you, the other side answer that they hired a new bookkeeper or were subject to an audit or were having money problems so decided to go through accounts or perhaps was off work due to ill health. Thats your defence gone, what now?

By all means, get a copy of the contract (if there was one!) and if it states payment is to be made in cash on collection or whatever then use that to sway the balance of probability that it was paid. But don't hinge your hopes on a judge going hercule poirot on them when they've brought a claim well within the period prescribed by law.

Zandoni

unholyangel wrote: »

Why does it matter? Did the delay cause the money to be owed (if it is) or cause it to increase? Not from what OP has said.

Again, even with a statute barred claim, its up to the defendant to raise that point in their defence. Not up to the judge to make any defence for them.

Most judges will also take whats said to them at face value (sad but true).

So you've based your whole defence on 3 years (when the law permits 6) and even if you raise the point yourself and judge entertains you, the other side answer that they hired a new bookkeeper or were subject to an audit or were having money problems so decided to go through accounts or perhaps was off work due to ill health. Thats your defence gone, what now?

By all means, get a copy of the contract (if there was one!) and if it states payment is to be made in cash on collection or whatever then use that to sway the balance of probability that it was paid. But don't hinge your hopes on a judge going hercule poirot on them when they've brought a claim well within the period prescribed by law.

I’m not suggesting the whole defence is based on the three year wait, but I still feel it’s a valid part of it.

Hermione_Granger

Zandoni wrote: »

I’m not suggesting the whole defence is based on the three year wait, but I still feel it’s a valid part of it.

But earlier, you stated that before he took the matter to court, the builder would need to provide evidence that they have already tried chasing the OP for the outstanding payment, (something that you've failed to show to be the case) so yes, your earlier post did imply that the 3 year delay is all that was needed for a defence.

Zandoni wrote: »

There would need to be some evidence that he has chased you before now if he wanted to go to court.

spadoosh

Just so you know guys, the OP made the post 4 days ago now, made a single post and hasnt been back. I appreciate the need to be right when arguing but youre giving a lot more care and consideration to this than the person it is effecting.

Zandoni

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

But earlier, you stated that before he took the matter to court, the builder would need to provide evidence that they have already tried chasing the OP for the outstanding payment, (something that you've failed to show to be the case) so yes, your earlier post did imply that the 3 year delay is all that was needed for a defence.

I still stand by that statement but i didn’t say that’s all they needed.

scd3scd4

I think what is being suggested is...................in the event of no evidence from either party. Will the judge take in consideration the delay of three years. Who knows how a judge is influenced.


However we have no got that far. All we have is some chancer ringing another up 3 years later and asking to be paid again. The fact he doesn't know a bailiff can not be used at this stage speaks volumes to me.

stragglebod

unholyangel wrote: »

Not in the circumstances.

You tell me, where in the limitation act it permits discretion to prescribe a shorter period than allowed for in the act for the circumstances described?

There are rules on when discretion can be applied and in what way, and that way in those circumstances is not one of them.

Nobody is suggesting that the limitation period is different for skip hire companies.

They can still bring proceedings after three years, four years, five years.

But the fact that they spent three years behaving exactly as you'd expect if the OP had paid in full, and not behaving the way you'd expect if he hadn't, is evidence that there's no debt.

You tell me where in any act it says that courts can't consider the actions the parties have taken as evidence? You might struggle with that.

shaun_from_Africa

In a criminal case, the court is limited as to what can and can't be used to prove or disprove the case but as this would be civil and not criminal action, the builder would need to show that on the balance of probability the OP hasn't paid.
Because of this, the judge would be free to consider anything stated or implied by both parties and surely the fact that no attempt to collect the money or even to contact the OP in the past 3 years could easily be considered by the judge and could tip the balance in favour of the OP.