Work done on house without my permission

grumbler

Doozergirl said:

fezster said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that a tradesmen should not be able to charge for their time. However, it's the underhanded nature which annoys people like me. This is their trade - they do it day in and day out, and this is not the first time they've come across this scenario. Why not be upfront and explain the costs, if they apply?

Imagine going into a clothes shop and asking the assistant to measure you for sizing. You proceed to walk out without purchasing anything and go to another shop - they then say you owe them £75. Why should they not be allowed to charge for their time?

If I ask any of my trades to 'look at' something, there's an unwritten expectation

There may be some special relations between you and your trades, but if it's a general customer and a general trade any charges, fixed or time-based, MUST be made clear in advance and agreed between both parties.

I don't understand how can anybody argue about this simple fact.

Section62

grumbler said:

There may be some special relations between you and your trades, but if it's a general customer and a general trade any charges, fixed or time-based, MUST be made clear in advance and agreed between both parties.

I don't understand how can anybody argue about this simple fact.

I agree 100% with Doozergirl.  Where you ask a trader to do "a job" there has to be an expectation you will need to pay them for their work, unless it is agreed in advance they are doing it for free.

What legislation is the basis for your "MUST" assertion?

The OP said they "made it clear the job was to 'look at' guttering".  Perhaps that "job" is Freudian, or maybe they used it in some unconventional sense. But whenever I've heard the word 'job' used in relation to having work done by a trader, paying for it has been the norm.

grumbler

Section62 said:

grumbler said:

There may be some special relations between you and your trades, but if it's a general customer and a general trade any charges, fixed or time-based, MUST be made clear in advance and agreed between both parties.

I don't understand how can anybody argue about this simple fact.

The OP said they "made it clear the job was to 'look at' guttering".  Perhaps that "job" is Freudian, or maybe they used it in some unconventional sense. But whenever I've heard the word 'job' used in relation to having work done by a trader, paying for it has been the norm.

The OP called them because the guttering was under their warranty.

They should have and could have made it clear that if the problem isn't covered by the warranty they would charge the OP £XX for callout an £YY for the job if the OP wants the latter. That's what any reputable business has to do instead of expecting that the customer would pay ANY amount they want.

£YY can be time-based, conditional, agreed later before the job is done.

What legislation is the basis for your "MUST" assertion?

That's how any contract works. I haven't seen a contract saying "we can charge any amount we want or find reasonable".  What's 'reasonable for a person charging £500 per day can be not 'reasonable' for a person on minimum wage.

fezster

Doozergirl said:

That's not a good analogy.  The £75 charge wasn't for a measure up, it was for the solution. 

I disagree. It's an adequate analogy. Asking for a service, where your expectation is there will be no charge, and subsequently being asked to pay for it.

@grumbler is spot on in his above posts. When was the contract formed? This is why I caveated my original posts with putting emotion and any sense of morality aside - otherwise, you could argue any side depending on your perspective.

However, the legal standpoint is pretty clear and the fact you and I are disagreeing (2 reasonable people, in my opinion) tells me that this is precisely why a charge such as this should be clarified from the offset. The OP is not the "expert" in this scenario - they may encounter something like this once in a while. For the tradesperson, they come across this day in and day out. They should have known what their obligations were. In fact, writing this, I'm more convinced than ever that the tradesperson knew exactly what they were doing and were relying on the goodwill of the customer to "just pay up". Nor would they be necessarily wrong if they received payment, as they did carry out a service. There is no obligation to pay, though, IMO.

Section62

grumbler said:

The OP called them because the guttering was under their warranty.

They should have and could have made it clear that if the problem isn't covered by the warranty they would charge the OP £XX for callout an £YY for the job if the OP wants the latter. That's what any reputable business has to do instead of expecting that the customer would pay ANY amount they want.

£YY can be time-based, conditional, agreed later before the job is done.

Again, what legislation is the basis for your "has to do" assertion?

It might be good practice to do, and in some very specific circumstances there is a legal requirement to do so, but there is no general requirement to do as you suggest.  People like the OP aren't helped by the creation of mythical consumer rights.

In any situation, regardless of reputation of the trader, the customer should always clarify what work is required and what is being charged for that work (including any call out). And do so before requesting the service.

grumbler said:

That's how any contract works. I haven't seen a contract saying "we can charge any amount we want or find reasonable". What's 'reasonable for a person charging £500 per day isn't 'reasonable' for a person on minimum wage.

In other words, what you asserted isn't supported by any legislation.

Consumers are protected against unreasonable charges, and where work isn't carried out to an acceptable standard.  Contract law doesn't require the service supplier to specify their charges prior to commencing work. The onus is on the customer to confirm the amount being charged if that is important to them.

Let's not make people think they can ask for 'a job' to be done, and then not have to pay for it. That won't help anyone.

fezster

Section62 said:

Let's not make people think they can ask for 'a job' to be done, and then not have to pay for it. That won't help anyone.

When was the work agreed by the OP?

I've read OP's posts and all I see is them asking for the blockage to be looked at. If they had agreed to the work, a contract would have been formed.

The tradesperson is not charging for the quote. Nor have they said they are offsetting the cost of "taking a look" against what they would have charged for the work. They are saying they charged for work which was not agreed.

If the charge was to "take a look", then there is differing information on what is or is not required. However, I'd refer you to this trading standards document from Greenwich council:

https://www.greenwichcommunitydirectory.org.uk/kb5/greenwich/directory/service.page?id=B_FAKcRXSK8

It’s a legal requirement under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) for the plumber to make it clear they are charging you for the visit and that this is separate from any work they may or may not do.

You say what is being said isn't supported by legislation, but I've yet to see the legislation you are relying on which makes you so adamant that this charge has legal basis?

Rosa_Damascena

The world has offered plenty of comment for the OP to mull over.

Where has @Catslovelycats disappeared to?

Section62

fezster said:

If the charge was to "take a look", then there is differing information on what is or is not required. However, I'd refer you to this trading standards document from Greenwich council:

Which refers to "Scams - Call out charges".

For all the uncertainty regarding other aspects of this case, the OP has said explicitly that the charge made is for "labour", and therefore not a "call out charge".

(various posters have also offered opinions that £75 is not an unreasonable labour charge for the work described).

fezster said:

You say what is being said isn't supported by legislation, but I've yet to see the legislation you are relying on which makes you so adamant that this charge has legal basis?

Please re-read my posts and let me know in which one you think I was "adamant that this charge has legal basis".

Ultimately, if the OP decides not to pay and the trader decides to pursue the matter legally it would be for a court to determine whether or not this specific charge has a legal basis. As a mere internet forum contributor I wouldn't consider it my role to make such a determination myself, not least do to the absence of key factual information.

On the other hand, I would call out a claim "I don't understand how can anybody argue about this simple fact" where the thing in question is neither simple, nor a fact.

fezster

Section62 said:

fezster said:

If the charge was to "take a look", then there is differing information on what is or is not required. However, I'd refer you to this trading standards document from Greenwich council:

Which refers to "Scams - Call out charges".

For all the uncertainty regarding other aspects of this case, the OP has said explicitly that the charge made is for "labour", and therefore not a "call out charge".

In which case, I don't understand what you are arguing? Either it is a call out charge (refer to link above - I'm not sure of the legal position, but all evidence I've found points to it being a requirement to spell out call out charges in advance).

Or it is a labour charge for work undertaken - in which case, legislation is actually quite clear that in order for a contract to be formed, the customer needs to agree to the work being undertaken.

I also agree that £75 is not an unreasonable charge for the work carried out - if they had asked OP before proceeding, I'm quite sure they may have agreed to it (if they were financially able to). Not being given the choice is my point of contention.

Section62

fezster said:

In which case, I don't understand what you are arguing? Either it is a call out charge (refer to link above - I'm not sure of the legal position, but all evidence I've found points to it being a requirement to spell out call out charges in advance).

Or it is a labour charge for work undertaken - in which case, legislation is actually quite clear that in order for a contract to be formed, the customer needs to agree to the work being undertaken.

As I said, it would be for a court to determine whether the OP is liable to pay in this specific situation.

The OP finds themselves in this position because they assumed that a request to have a "look at" their guttering would not result in a charge being made. In trying to help the OP you are apparently making a related mistake of assuming there is no contract because the known circumstances don't fit your perception of what is required for a contract to exist.  Making assumptions is a bad idea in business relationships.

So what I am "arguing" is exactly what I said earlier - "In any situation, regardless of reputation of the trader, the customer should always clarify what work is required and what is being charged for that work (including any call out). And do so before requesting the service."

In other words, don't make assumptions, and don't use vague terms like 'have a look'.

fezster said:

I also agree that £75 is not an unreasonable charge for the work carried out - if they had asked OP before proceeding, I'm quite sure they may have agreed to it (if they were financially able to)....

The OP explicitly stated "I would have asked my neighbour to help me clear it for free."

fezster said:

....Not being given the choice is my point of contention.

But that isn't the OP's point of objection.  They have been clear here that they wanted the work done for free, either under warranty or by the neighbour.  If they had been similarly clear with the trader to start with then they wouldn't be in this situation.