Cowboy Builder

grumbler

Risteard said:

asiablue67 said:

(Please note: he told us that it would be better to pay him in cash because if we paid the normal way he would have to add VAT which would mean that it would cost a lot more) we opted for cash. (I know ....stupid)

So you publicly admit to the commission of a crime (tax fraud) but want to blame everything on your alleged former friend?

The crime was committed by the builder. It's his liability to pay tax on any earnings, including cash.

The OP knew about the intention to commit crime, but didn't commit it personally. Paying cash isn't crime.

Doozergirl

grumbler said:

Risteard said:

asiablue67 said:

(Please note: he told us that it would be better to pay him in cash because if we paid the normal way he would have to add VAT which would mean that it would cost a lot more) we opted for cash. (I know ....stupid)

So you publicly admit to the commission of a crime (tax fraud) but want to blame everything on your alleged former friend?

The crime was committed by the builder. It's his liability to pay tax on any earnings, including cash.

The OP knew about the intention to commit crime, but didn't commit it personally. Paying cash isn't crime.

He said they commissioned it, not committed it. 

The homeowner did break the law when they didn't obtain Building Regulations Approval.  

Either way, they were wrong.  If homeowner knowingly encourages a supplier to commit a crime to benefit their own pocket, what entitles then to think that their supplier will stick to any of the other rules?  

Jeepers_Creepers

Risteard said:

asiablue67 said:

(Please note: he told us that it would be better to pay him in cash because if we paid the normal way he would have to add VAT which would mean that it would cost a lot more) we opted for cash. (I know ....stupid)

So you publicly admit to the commission of a crime (tax fraud) but want to blame everything on your alleged former friend?

An utterly ridiculous comparison. And AB didn't 'commission' anything other than the extension.

What is the least AB could be 'guilty' of? Ignorance of BC requirements. Ignorance of tax rules. Naivety. Being too trusting of a family friend. Being lazy in not checking out rules himself. Not being critical enough. Not being naturally cynical and suspicious. (Yes, I know the first two 'are no excuse', but I'm talking about someone just being stupid, thick, a dullard, a twit, a...)

What's the worst thing AB could be guilty of? Being knowingly complicit in tax evasion - if he knew it to be the case (which, to be fair, he must have at least suspected...). Ignorance of BC reqs. Being too trusting of a yougettheidea.

Now let's look at the builder... What are the least and worst things he's guilty of - because it amounts to the same thing as this guy knew exactly what he was doing; absolutely being a bone-fide cowboy (sorry Doozer) in its truest terms. Absolutely tax avoidance. Absolutely being a liar and a cheat and a conman. Absolutely doing everything knowing it to be wrong.

They are remotely equally culpable?! Come off it. AB is guilty of acting on a natural human behavioural flaw we are all capable of to some degree - convincing yourself that something that is 'too good to be true' is true. That set of new Apple airpods on eBay for £50. The most generous and holy Nigerian prince desp to give you his cash. The builder who says 'cash' will keep him under the tax threshold - "it's legit, honestly".

So AB doesn't come out of this smelling entirely of roses, I know, but - well, let's put a further little slant on this scenario (you'll need to forgive the following sexism, ageism, and clichéisms); say AB had been a recently widowed septuagenarian who had a trusted family friend who was a builder. Replay AB's whole situation, exactly as it panned out, and tell me they are equally culpable.

Doozergirl

Jeepers, the homeowner did break the law and they also knew that their cowboy was breaking the law.   

Weren't you just vilifying people that don't park in their garages and people that park their caravans on their own driveways in breach of covenants?   You appear more convinced about the motives of people that don't follow the spirit of conditions than people breaking the actual law.  

Colluding in the ripping-off of the taxpayer of thousands of pounds and robbing genuine builders of work and reputation is only naive in retrospect.  If the build had gone well, it would have been a fantastic result only at the expense of other people.

The cowboy even told them beforehand that pictures would be taken 'IF' building control got involved.  Why?  If they genuinely didn't need to be?    This was all about cutting costs and, somewhat ironically, I suspect that they probably did get the level of work that they paid for.  

For the tradespeople here, it isn't our first rodeo.  We've encountered those cowboys that don't like to pay and sometimes, particularly in the early days, we don't manage to escape them.  Like you said, there are two types of people... 

Jeepers_Creepers

You are right, Doozer - absolutely.

I just don't think that AB is anywhere near as culpable as the builder, that's all - morally or legally.

One set out to do wrong, and betrayed a friend's trust as well. A morally hideous individual, as well as a C'Boy. The other allowed themselves to be sucked along against their better judgement, but I'm pretty sure that AB wouldn't have done anything he knew would harm anyone else.

They are not comparable, that's all.

Doozergirl

They may not be 'quite' as bad as their friend, but they didn't get sucked along.  They got caught out.  Lots of people will admit to making mistakes when they get caught, they don't often announce that what they did was willful. 

fezster

asiablue67 - how long ago was the extension built?

Assuming planning wasn't required (big if), Building regs cannot be enforced after 12 months. So putting any structural issues aside (which of course should be checked and rectified), there is no enforcement possible.

Jeepers_Creepers

The problem is structural, Fez. I understand that's why it needs to come down/rebuilt.

couriervanman

"We had a very close friend who was a builder"...doesn't stop him being a cowboy plus dropping cash around to make things easier........nobody else to blame OP but yourself, did you check his work/references/recommendations etc

fezster

Jeepers_Creepers said:

The problem is structural, Fez. I understand that's why it needs to come down/rebuilt.

OP said:

"but after Building Regs and Structural Engineer attended, they both confirmed that we would need to pull the extension down and start again"

Not much detail here to go on. There are many extensions built years ago that do not meet Building Regs, yet are still standing. Unless the SE dug bore holes to inspect foundations, I'm not sure how a determination was made that it needs "pulling down". We need a lot more detail from OP on exactly what has been inspected and why this conclusion was drawn. What exactly is wrong with the extension that merits starting over rather than rectifying what is there?