Cowboy Builder

ComicGeek

It's understandable that people don't automatically know the correct process, it's not something that people do regularly, and some won't ever do it at all. 

But with the amount of information readily available on the internet, and the fact that they can just contact their local building control office for advice, I don't see that there's any excuse for not researching it before proceeding. It amazes me that people are so willing to part with their money without doing any due diligence themselves.

Let's be honest though - the OP heard that they could get a discount by not paying VAT and greed took over - classic con trick, but requires both parties to participate.

Jeepers_Creepers

There is no 'excuse' - not even ignorance if it were the case here - which it isn't. Asia him/herself knows this and has honourably 'fessed up. I bet the builder won't.

All I'm saying is that AB's misdemeanour pales deeply against their builder's multiple legal and moral wrongs.

I don't believe these two are cut from the same cloth. At all. AB has done what many/most of us layfolk have either done themselves at some point to some degree, or have at least toyed with it. Many amongst us will have even instigated this - "Aaaand how much would it be for cash...?!"

AB was effectively enticed, entrapped into to this. Quite willingly? Probably. Would they have been the one to initially suggest this? I doubt it. 

And I'm pretty sure that AB would not do to another person all the things that this builder has done to them.

I wish him/her luck with their claim (and a slap on the wrist).

williamgriffin

Jeepers_Creepers said:

There is no 'excuse' - not even ignorance if it were the case here - which it isn't. Asia him/herself knows this and has honourably 'fessed up. I bet the builder won't.

All I'm saying is that AB's misdemeanour pales deeply against their builder's multiple legal and moral wrongs.

I don't believe these two are cut from the same cloth. At all. AB has done what many/most of us layfolk have either done themselves at some point to some degree, or have at least toyed with it. Many amongst us will have even instigated this - "Aaaand how much would it be for cash...?!"

AB was effectively enticed, entrapped into to this. Quite willingly? Probably. Would they have been the one to initially suggest this? I doubt it. 

And I'm pretty sure that AB would not do to another person all the things that this builder has done to them.

I wish him/her luck with their claim (and a slap on the wrist).

I bet the OP would never have mentioned avoiding VAT if the build had gone well. 

Jeepers_Creepers

Of course not. Would you? :-)   

Jeepers_Creepers

A couple of years ago, I was driving my C3 Picasso (I know, I know) across a local bridge when it went 'clunk' and went into limp-mode. I nursed it to the next village where I knew there was a garage, and asked the mechanic for help.

He stuck on his thingy (OBR?) and diagnosed a fuel issue, and gave his experienced opinion that it was most likely a blocked fuel filter, explained it was an easy DIY job, and pointed to the offending item. He reset the fault to allow me to get home, and I asked him what I owed him.

"Oh...£20 will do."

I suspected the crisp £20 note I handed over would go straight in his pocket, so I asked him for an official VAT invoice as I was an honoured member of the MSE forum and couldn't be seen encouraging anyone to evade tax.

True story. Apart from the last sentence. The truth is I kissed him fully on the lips, thanked him profusely, walked along the nearby sandy beach with my wife and dawgs, and later replaced the filter which cost me £30 and which fixed the car.

Some of that last bit might not be true either.  

ComicGeek

I have never paid cash to avoid paying VAT. I have never accepted cash from customers to avoid putting the job through the books and charging them VAT - in fact I've never accepted cash full stop, everything is paid by cheque/BACs/CC straight into the company account for complete transparency.

I don't believe that I'm the only one. I would hope that I'm in the majority rather than the minority, but there's a reason why HMRC target certain industries/trades.

Doozergirl

You're a lovely person for believing that the OP was just a bit gullible, Jeepers.   I see holes in the story.

There seems to be quite a short time frame between the purchase and subsequent sale but little detail about how the builder, a good friend, subsequently became such a bad person that selling the family home was necessary.     And at no point there was any inkling, living in the house, that the building was structurally condemned?   This only seems to have come out because the BC paperwork would be essential for a recent extension when selling the house, otherwise they'd be none the wiser...

 

They had other builders/professionals out to 'look at the plans' but ignored the advice about building control, yet the builder said he would take photos in case they got involved.  They either are or they aren't, there's no 'just in case'.  To me, it has some of  the hallmarks of a property bought to flip for maximum profit and minimum expenditure, but the story has been softened slightly for our benefit.   They knew about the tax and they knew about the building control and took a knowingly massive risk.   They probably paid for what they received and now they want the builder to pay for something that was agreed to.  

Building control isn't expensive in comparison to any extension.  If you build correctly, it's a no brainer to get it inspected.  The money is saved by not working to the regulations.  

I'm finished on the subject.   I've really only continued picking the bones because the OP made a rapid exit.  

 

Jeepers_Creepers

You are absolutely right, Doozer. (Again. Stop it.)

For a start, I am going - like with most threads - on the one side presented to us by the poster. Yes, Asia knew that evading tax was wrong. He also, very likely, knew that build regs was kinda important. How 'close' this friend actually was, is open to question - just having a pint in a group doesn't mean much.

To be fair to the OP, he has acknowledged much of this. That is a significant plus in my eyes - most folk, I think, would protest they hadn't a clue what was happening...

Also, what he has fallen for - the 'too good to be true', or 'a risk worth taking', or 'this is a victimless crime...' (barlocks) is - rightly or wrongly - a human gut reaction. We all know how intentionally 'gullible' around half the population is.

So, he was wrong - totally, no question. And, man, he's paying the price. I don't think he's a 'bad' person. He could be, but doesn't seem like it on here.

The builder, on the other hand, is beyond despicable. Quite happy to screw over someone he's had a regular pint with. He didn't even have the decency to do a proper job! He's not even a builder! He's a con artist.

I don't get the 'equal blame' or 'he deserves it' malarkey, that's all.

Jeepers_Creepers

If this had been an 80-year old widow making the thread, how different the responses would have been. But why?

Doozergirl

Jeepers_Creepers said:

If this had been an 80-year old widow making the thread, how different the responses would have been. But why?

It wasn't, and I don't believe the story would have been anywhere near the same if you want to use a typical example of an 80 year old and what type of work they'd be having done.   You have to take poster and their stories on their own merits.

The OP knew what was going on.