Suing a plumber in a small claims court

ImranQ

Hi Knowledgable money savers,
I'm in the process of suing a plumber that did work in my house to a level well below expectation. For example, he used a lot of the old parts that should have been replaced and which came with a new hot water cylinder that was being replaced. Instead he kept the parts (around £200 worth) himself.

The case is being handled by solicitors working for my insurance company. Because of the small claim (around £630), the insurance company solicitors have helped to build the case & documentation, and sent the 30 day notice to the plumber. However due to a limit in solicitor costs, it will be upto me to take the claim to the court if the plumber does not pay but the insurance have offered to pay court fees. The solicitors have also said I have a high degree of winning the case which is why they took it on.

The plumber works through a Limited company, so it's possible he may just wind up the company to avoid debts although for £630, it may not be worth that much hassle for the plumber. I did some digging this w/e and found that the plumber requested payments for his services, to a personal bank account which is listed on the invoice he sent me and to which I sent the payments. 

So my question is, does the fact that the plumber has not used a business bank account but a personal one, complicated his own life as I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that his own credit rating can be screwed up as a result? Just wondering about my paths ahead and the actions that I can take..

Regards,
Imran

tacpot12

Regardless of whether he was paid to his business account or personal account, you cna only sue the legal entity that your contract was with. Who was the contract with; him or his company? If it was with him, then you are suing him as a sole trader and his perrsonal credit rating will be hit. If you are suing his company, only his company will be affected.

ImranQ

His number was given to me by another plumber. When he came to give the quote there was no mention of the company. However before work proceeded, he sent me a company headered invoice for 1/2 up-front costs. I assume payment to the bank account listed on the invoice assumes contract acceptance..

user1977

Presumably the solicitors are at least advising you about whom you ought to be suing?

ImranQ

user1977 said:

Presumably the solicitors are at least advising you about whom you ought to be suing?

Let's just say "advice" as in the lightest meaning of the word. My case is being handled by a paralegal at the firm. As far as I know, the notice letter has been addressed to the plumber but I do know that the paralegal has done the Company House searches as they mentioned this in the first advice letter they sent before taking on the case at the end of April 2022.

The process has so far taken around 5 months as they seem to have a turnaround of 5-10 days to get any response from them after *any* communication so you have to be careful what you ask them to not lengthen the process. e.g. 10 days just to respond back after paying the legal insurance excess. They have agreed to give the final advice and path near the end of the 30 day notice letter.

Funnily enough I had no experience of the legal world so going through this process has been extremely enlightening & educational. No way I would ever use insurance legal services again though.

pinkshoes

Why are you using solicitors?!?! If someone has done a substandard job and you can prove it then just use a small claims court.

Get an independent plumber to write  report saying how much it will cost to put right then sue for that amount.

Is system installed not working?

ImranQ

pinkshoes said:

Why are you using solicitors?!?! If someone has done a substandard job and you can prove it then just use a small claims court.

Get an independent plumber to write  report saying how much it will cost to put right then sue for that amount.

Is system installed not working?

I'm not paying anything extra to use the insurance legal services apart from the basic excess fee of £50. The reason to go this route was that I was initially unfamiliar with the legal processes.

I've had to get three quotes anyway as they will be required by the court. 

The system is working but barely working. As I mentioned, instead of using all the parts that came with the new cylinder, he "kept" some of the new parts for himself and "reused" the ones that were already fitted with the old water cylinder. Considering these cylinders typically last 20-25 years, I would envisage some of these unfitted parts are likely to break down in the near future.

bris

Sounds like the OP is just upset that some of the new parts wernt used.

There could be reasons for that like old imperial pipework so using the old fitting makes sense as they are compatable without further modification.

These parts are pretty bullet proof, made a lot better in the old days to some of the cheap parts we get today.

The limited company is who you sue as you know but getting the money to a personal account is of no concern to you, it's an accounting issue for him between his LTD co and himself.

He needs to account for the invoice in his accounts and the payment in his drawings or dividends but again nothing wrong there.

The parts are worth £200 (are you sure about that) so not sure where the claim for £630 comes from, can you explain what you are claiming for apart from the parts.

ImranQ

You sound like you’re defending the plumber. 

It’s not about being upset. I’ve paid to have an unvented cylinder replaced and paid for the equipment and the parts that come with it. He has not fitted the parts because 1) he made mistakes on the day and had two consecutive leaks in the system on the day when it came to turning the system on. 2) to save his costs 3) primarily sheer laziness so he wouldn’t have to come back.

Most people would be of the opinion that if he has taken away equipment without approval, then it’s technically stealing. There is no excuse for that. He either fits it or leaves it behind. 

The plumber has not fitted the new combination valve, tundish, port valve and thermostat. Say the old combination valve that was not replaced by the new one that came with the cylinder fails in the future and I need to contact the cylinder manufacturer, would that void the warranty … do you think? 

The price I quoted is by another plumber so includes fitting the parts as well as labor, repairing shoddy workmanship such as in the photo below. The pipe ‘popped out’ a couple of months after the workman left. It’s actually a health and safety issue now as well. So all the pipe work up to the combination valve has to be replaced. Also, the plumber has not given any paperwork over - manuals, certificate and not filed with the Council building services. 

pinkshoes

No one is defending the plumber; merely requesting more details.

As you have now engaged the services of the no win no fee solicitor you will need to continue as otherwise you will find a fee is due. Check the small print you agreed to in the T&Cs. 

As the claim is only for a smallish amount of money, you may find their fees eat into this. Again, check the T&Cs you agreed to. 

The invoice is from the business so this is who you go after. I assume the business has assets? If not you may find he could wind the business up to avoid paying.

Jenni_D

pinkshoes said:

No one is defending the plumber; merely requesting more details.

As you have now engaged the services of the no win no fee solicitor you will need to continue as otherwise you will find a fee is due. Check the small print you agreed to in the T&Cs. 

As the claim is only for a smallish amount of money, you may find their fees eat into this. Again, check the T&Cs you agreed to. 

The invoice is from the business so this is who you go after. I assume the business has assets? If not you may find he could wind the business up to avoid paying.

OP has not done that - or at least that's not how I read it. They've engaged initial services per their home legal protection policy as part of their home insurance.