Taking a rogue builder to court..Advice please

sam1970

We had a complete house renovation 3 years ago and every thing you could think of has gone horribly wrong. I contracted a building firm to do the job and they just cut every corner they could  from using non Gas-safe person to install new boiler to not carrying out full rewiring of the house when they were paid to do so. We are having leaks from new bathrooms and new floor tiling has to be re-done due to poor installation. I got the firm fined by Health and Safety executive and they had prohibition notices served on them. I need now to take them to court to compensate me for all the work which they did not do and the costs I incurred to rectify the problems they left me with. 

My rough estimation is between 15-20 K plus wasting my time and the stress I had for 3 years. Iam aware that they might claim that they have no money and just disappear so Iam thinking of going down the route of small claims court to minimise my risks. I know I can only claim 10K through that route but if I go through MCOL, can I ask for more money (the option is there on the website) and proceed with the case without legal representation? I dont want to spend thousands more on solicitors when there no guarantee that I will see any money at the end even if I win the case.
Any advice please!

JJ_Egan

Time and stress no .

Quantify your actual losses don't use a guess .

waamo

Does that 15-20k include a made up figure for stress or is it genuine out of pocket expenses? If it's the former drop them as a court won't award them anyway. That might bring you into small claim territory.

If they don't file a defence it doesn't get allocated to a track so that's a possibility in this case. The judge deciding the track may also feel its uncomplicated and does not require any expert opinion so is still suitable for the small claims track. It's worth a try

sam1970

Thank you guys. Actually the 15-20K will be just for the contracted paid work which was not done and the cost of sorting out various leaks, retiling etc. but Iam prepared to accept 10K only by going through small claims to reduce my risks and cost

steampowered

You can issue a claim through MCOL up to £100,000.

Your claim will then get allocated to a "track". Claims below £10k will be allocated to the small claims track. Claims between £10k and £25k will usually be allocated to what is called the "fast track".

You do not have to use solicitors in either track. There isn't an enormous different in terms of the court fee you'd have to pay. The main difference is that, in the fast track, the loser will be ordered to pay the winner's legal costs (in small claims, legal costs are generally not awarded).

You get a little bit less leeway to ignore the court process in the fast track, but if you careful to comply with court directions and take the time to familiarise yourself with the Civil Procedure Rules, it's still possible to do the claim yourself.

sam1970

Thank you. That was helpful. My strategy is that although my claim could easily come to 15K, and I can prove that to court, I might be better off dropping it to 10K to reduce risks of being out of pocket if he doesn't pay or if something strange happens and he wins the case and I end paying his legal costs... although that will be very unlikely as I have a well prepared folder with all documents from various bodies condeming his work.

waamo

If you represent yourself and your evidence is as strong as you say it is I see no reason to short change yourself. Costs, even at fast track, are pretty limited and aren't guaranteed to be awarded.

steampowered

That makes sense. Of course, if you only claim less than £10k, that will be it. If you go down that route you can't make another claim for the remaining £5k later on.

It's also worth mentioning that in the fast track you can claim litigant in person costs of £19 per an hour for time spent on the litigation.

sam1970

Thank you for the advice. Sorry but I didn't understand the last point. What is £19/hr fee and who can claim it?

sam1970

The builder's business is registered in a Ltd. company..I have heard that ltd companies can get away by ignoring court rulings, winding down the company and starting a new company the next day. Is that true? Is there a point in taking them to court if that is the case? It just makes a mockery of the judicial system.