Builder Charged Me 3 Years Later

unholyangel

davidmcn wrote: »

A judge wouldn't be able to take it into consideration if there were a law saying they can't take into consideration (which, to the best of my knowledge, there ain't). The principle of prescription doesn't mean courts have to ignore the concept of time when considering the evidence.

In my experience, skips are something which ordinary punters only get in exchange for upfront payment - they're not delivered, uplifted, emptied, and invoiced some time later. So a bit different from many other potential types of debt.

I'm not sure how I can explain any clearer than 3 years is nothing. But lets try.

If the skip was hired from the company at the start of the financial year, you're looking at 2 years or there about before the accounts are due. Then factor in time to query it (if their accountant is on the ball if not then they'll probably be waiting another 6-9 months to get their books back) and trawl through records (which may not have a fancy computer system to search/highlight it for them) to find the possible culprit? That can all easily take 3 years.

There are things that would be useful looking into. Namely anything that can prove you did pay. Not that them not taking action is proof of it being paid.

I find it surreal that people are arguing 3 years would be taken into consideration as proof it was paid for 2 reasons.
1) As I already said, what circumstances would have to occur for a debt to be recorded as settled for 2+ years only to suddenly become due again?
2) If that were the case, we could all avoid our debts for 3 years then claim it was proof it was paid - because they never took legal action before now.

Again, an accounting error is more likely than deliberate fraud. An accounting error only carries the burden on the balance of probability. For fraud that is beyond reasonable doubt - good luck with that one. A judge would be more open to the suggestion of error than fraud.

Bollo2019

Personally I'd try to find out who else had used this company, contact them and ask what their experiences have been. If this is happening with other people it sounds like shenanigans. I'm sure they wouldn't like the thought of accused customers naming and sharing them.

scd3scd4

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm not sure how I can explain any clearer than 3 years is nothing. But lets try.

If the skip was hired from the company at the start of the financial year, you're looking at 2 years or there about before the accounts are due. Then factor in time to query it (if their accountant is on the ball if not then they'll probably be waiting another 6-9 months to get their books back) and trawl through records (which may not have a fancy computer system to search/highlight it for them) to find the possible culprit? That can all easily take 3 years.

There are things that would be useful looking into. Namely anything that can prove you did pay. Not that them not taking action is proof of it being paid.

I find it surreal that people are arguing 3 years would be taken into consideration as proof it was paid for 2 reasons.
1) As I already said, what circumstances would have to occur for a debt to be recorded as settled for 2+ years only to suddenly become due again?
2) If that were the case, we could all avoid our debts for 3 years then claim it was proof it was paid - because they never took legal action before now.

Again, an accounting error is more likely than deliberate fraud. An accounting error only carries the burden on the balance of probability. For fraud that is beyond reasonable doubt - good luck with that one. A judge would be more open to the suggestion of error than fraud.

Why are you getting all excited. All we have is some mug phoning the OP up saying you owe me money. Where's the invoice and a nice vat number?


Until the hire firm issues a CC we don't need anything explained. Its just drama, that's the surreal part.

ceredigion

Thread title. " Builder".
Thread content "skip company "

Skip ordered by the builder to be delivered to ?
Customer pays for skip directly to avoid builders VAT & possibly skip company VAT.
Skip company gets audited , by HRMC that throws a delivery note with no corresponding invoice.
Skip company has to be seen to chase it.

unholyangel

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Why are you getting all excited. All we have is some mug phoning the OP up saying you owe me money. Where's the invoice and a nice vat number?


Until the hire firm issues a CC we don't need anything explained. Its just drama, that's the surreal part.

Who said anything about VAT? Why are you asserting that I'm getting all excited? Are you one of those people who would say you had a wild exciting night all because you went to bed 5 mins past your bedtime?

I'll remind you that it wasn't me that jumped to court action. But other posters keep averring that the length of time will see a judge swayed in OPs favour. All I've said is that a 3 year delay is nothing and can easily be explained.

scd3scd4

unholyangel wrote: »

Who said anything about VAT? Why are you asserting that I'm getting all excited? Are you one of those people who would say you had a wild exciting night all because you went to bed 5 mins past your bedtime?

I'll remind you that it wasn't me that jumped to court action. But other posters keep averring that the length of time will see a judge swayed in OPs favour. All I've said is that a 3 year delay is nothing and can easily be explained.

Because I would want to see an invoice first, which should include vat details among other info. Not some hedge-mumper ringing me up saying I owe money.

Lets dont make an exciting night out over a £1 pizza a warm beer while watching Eastenders with our mum and the cat.

davidmcn

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Because I would want to see an invoice first, which should include vat details

There's no entitlement to a VAT invoice unless both parties are VAT-registered.

scd3scd4

davidmcn wrote: »

There's no entitlement to a VAT invoice unless both parties are VAT-registered.

I would only pay with an invoice/receipt. No phone calls and no cash.

I can check myself if he is vat reg, if he includes it as part of the bill................which chancers like this firm often do.

Regardless I would not be paying. I would take my chance in a CC.

spadoosh

spadoosh wrote: »

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.

Are we still arguing over who's right?

Can someone update me on whose winning?

scd3scd4

spadoosh wrote: »

Are we still arguing over who's right?

Can someone update me on whose winning?

Why do you care? lol