Bank refusing refund for patio works not carried out

visidigi

sheramber said:

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

eskbanker said:

visidigi said:

Have they stopped responding to you? (the builder?) I would be tempted to get a PAYG sim for a phone and send them a message from a new number and ask them for a quote - see if they take up the offer...then go to the police with the evidence.

No harm in doing that to establish contactability but surely it would need to be significantly further along before it would cross the threshold from civil dispute into criminal fraud, enough to get the police interested?

So my thinking was it shows intent to defraud

Not sure why you think that would that assist any of his debtors? Fraud is a criminal offence, not something which helps anybody get their money back.

So maybe fraud is the wrong word to use here  - Intentionally taking money for work you have no intention of completing is theft - I don't see why we would just be advising the OP to chalk it up and move on - would you?

The same point applies - arguing that it’s “theft” isn’t going to get the OP anywhere, even if it is (and I really doubt it comes anywhere near it).

I don't mean arguing with the bank! Why is everyone aligning this to what the bank should be responsible for? It's clear the bank has absolutely no involvement in this (as was clarified many posts ago).

The OP has been ripped off, hasn't got the service they paid for and is now being ghosted. They should be able to report this fraud/theft like any other case - be that action fraud, trading standards etc - even if it doesn't get the OP's money back you wont stop people doing this to others unless its actually reported.

Did you read the first post?

People are arguing   about the bank responsibility because the OP ‘s post was complaining that the bank wouldn’t refund him. 

yes, but many posts after that changed it - just like every other thread round here...

Hoenir

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

eskbanker said:

visidigi said:

Have they stopped responding to you? (the builder?) I would be tempted to get a PAYG sim for a phone and send them a message from a new number and ask them for a quote - see if they take up the offer...then go to the police with the evidence.

No harm in doing that to establish contactability but surely it would need to be significantly further along before it would cross the threshold from civil dispute into criminal fraud, enough to get the police interested?

So my thinking was it shows intent to defraud

Not sure why you think that would that assist any of his debtors? Fraud is a criminal offence, not something which helps anybody get their money back.

So maybe fraud is the wrong word to use here  - Intentionally taking money for work you have no intention of completing is theft - I don't see why we would just be advising the OP to chalk it up and move on - would you?

The contractor previously did an ok job for a friend. There's no reason to suggest he intentionally set out to steal or defraud. Though ultimately he failed to start the work he was paid for. These things happen in life. Unfortunately doesn't mean that an unrelated third party picks up the bill either. Has happened to me in the past. By someone who previously done a number of jobs well. For personal reasons rapidly upped sticks and moved away. 

gilbo47

Hoenir said:

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

eskbanker said:

visidigi said:

Have they stopped responding to you? (the builder?) I would be tempted to get a PAYG sim for a phone and send them a message from a new number and ask them for a quote - see if they take up the offer...then go to the police with the evidence.

No harm in doing that to establish contactability but surely it would need to be significantly further along before it would cross the threshold from civil dispute into criminal fraud, enough to get the police interested?

So my thinking was it shows intent to defraud

Not sure why you think that would that assist any of his debtors? Fraud is a criminal offence, not something which helps anybody get their money back.

So maybe fraud is the wrong word to use here  - Intentionally taking money for work you have no intention of completing is theft - I don't see why we would just be advising the OP to chalk it up and move on - would you?

The contractor previously did an ok job for a friend. There's no reason to suggest he intentionally set out to steal or defraud. Though ultimately he failed to start the work he was paid for. These things happen in life. Unfortunately doesn't mean that an unrelated third party picks up the bill either. Has happened to me in the past. By someone who previously done a number of jobs well. For personal reasons rapidly upped sticks and moved away. 

And that's exactly what I'm having a very hard time getting around..you and others have implied "oh because he never meant to defraud you, it's not fraud"...another poster even said "this doesn't come close to theft"...but the guy's made off with my cash and is uncontactable and hasn't finished the job I gave him cash for.

Oh but...eerr...sorry... but..nah...definitely not a crime...move along now...nothing you can do.

(More toungue in cheek paraphrasing but you get the jist of my bewilderment with all of this!)

eskbanker

gilbo47 said:

Hoenir said:

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

eskbanker said:

visidigi said:

Have they stopped responding to you? (the builder?) I would be tempted to get a PAYG sim for a phone and send them a message from a new number and ask them for a quote - see if they take up the offer...then go to the police with the evidence.

No harm in doing that to establish contactability but surely it would need to be significantly further along before it would cross the threshold from civil dispute into criminal fraud, enough to get the police interested?

So my thinking was it shows intent to defraud

Not sure why you think that would that assist any of his debtors? Fraud is a criminal offence, not something which helps anybody get their money back.

So maybe fraud is the wrong word to use here  - Intentionally taking money for work you have no intention of completing is theft - I don't see why we would just be advising the OP to chalk it up and move on - would you?

The contractor previously did an ok job for a friend. There's no reason to suggest he intentionally set out to steal or defraud. Though ultimately he failed to start the work he was paid for. These things happen in life. Unfortunately doesn't mean that an unrelated third party picks up the bill either. Has happened to me in the past. By someone who previously done a number of jobs well. For personal reasons rapidly upped sticks and moved away. 

And that's exactly what I'm having a very hard time getting around..you and others have implied "oh because he never meant to defraud you, it's not fraud"...another poster even said "this doesn't come close to theft"...but the guy's made off with my cash and is uncontactable and hasn't finished the job I gave him cash for.

Oh but...eerr...sorry... but..nah...definitely not a crime...move along now...nothing you can do.

(More toungue in cheek paraphrasing but you get the jist of my bewilderment with all of this!)

It may all seem like semantics but it's quite important - if there's demonstrable intent to defraud then that would be criminal, opening up possibilities with your bank as well as being reportable to the police, but simply not receiving what you paid for doesn't in itself reach that threshold.

However, either way round, a court should help you establish your right to reimbursement, albeit that still doesn't guarantee that you'd actually get your money back, as enforcement is an entirely different story....

gilbo47

eskbanker said:

gilbo47 said:

Hoenir said:

visidigi said:

user1977 said:

visidigi said:

eskbanker said:

visidigi said:

Have they stopped responding to you? (the builder?) I would be tempted to get a PAYG sim for a phone and send them a message from a new number and ask them for a quote - see if they take up the offer...then go to the police with the evidence.

No harm in doing that to establish contactability but surely it would need to be significantly further along before it would cross the threshold from civil dispute into criminal fraud, enough to get the police interested?

So my thinking was it shows intent to defraud

Not sure why you think that would that assist any of his debtors? Fraud is a criminal offence, not something which helps anybody get their money back.

So maybe fraud is the wrong word to use here  - Intentionally taking money for work you have no intention of completing is theft - I don't see why we would just be advising the OP to chalk it up and move on - would you?

The contractor previously did an ok job for a friend. There's no reason to suggest he intentionally set out to steal or defraud. Though ultimately he failed to start the work he was paid for. These things happen in life. Unfortunately doesn't mean that an unrelated third party picks up the bill either. Has happened to me in the past. By someone who previously done a number of jobs well. For personal reasons rapidly upped sticks and moved away. 

And that's exactly what I'm having a very hard time getting around..you and others have implied "oh because he never meant to defraud you, it's not fraud"...another poster even said "this doesn't come close to theft"...but the guy's made off with my cash and is uncontactable and hasn't finished the job I gave him cash for.

Oh but...eerr...sorry... but..nah...definitely not a crime...move along now...nothing you can do.

(More toungue in cheek paraphrasing but you get the jist of my bewilderment with all of this!)

It may all seem like semantics but it's quite important - if there's demonstrable intent to defraud then that would be criminal, opening up possibilities with your bank as well as being reportable to the police, but simply not receiving what you paid for doesn't in itself reach that threshold.

However, either way round, a court should help you establish your right to reimbursement, albeit that still doesn't guarantee that you'd actually get your money back, as enforcement is an entirely different story....

I get you. But my mind is still blown:

"I've nicked ya money but I didn't intend for it to happen...it just happened...so..eerrr...I ain't a criminal..anyway mate cheers for ya money and good luck proving I'm not lying about not intending this to happen. See ya!"

Just all seems so so odd.

Grumpy_chap

Nobody is saying that what has happened is correct or should have happened.

The comments are saying that, certainly against the original question, there is no fraud taken place for which the bank would be liable.

It is not clear that any crime has taken place - either fraud or theft - because there was never intent.

That leaves you with how to recover the situation.
This is a simple consumer matter of paid for services not adequately delivered.  The remedy is via the small claims court.
The individual has apparently disappeared for now.  That means you cannot serve court papers.

In the immediate term, there seems to be nothing you can do practically. 
That does not mean you have to totally suffer the loss as time may be a healer and present you with a route to a remedy.  Usually allowed up to 6 years to take action.
So - the individual might patch things up at hoe and move back in.
You might find another address for the individual.
You might find evidence that the individual is still officially residing at the address you have for him.
If one of these three events occur, you may be able to contact the individual and recover the funds.  Or the individual might not have any assets, thus making any recovery fruitless even if a court found in your favour.

SimonSeys

Similar thing happened to me but with some wood flooring.  Company quoted, deposit paid, then an expected delay as they had other jobs to do and they waited for materials. But then a string of excuses and they failed to turn up. 

Eventually the company went bust and a new company was started with a similar name and the same directors. 

I took them to small claims court, won, sent round bailiffs, but received nothing as contract was with previous company and that company no longer exists.

Sadly no criminal offence was committed. Certainly not fraud, nor theft, as no intention, just bad luck and cashflow issues… …I assume.

Fortunately I had paid initial deposit on CC so they were jointly liable and I got the deposit back, plus court fees.  But this is a civil issue, not criminal.  (Assuming the directors were not trading while insolvent)

S

gilbo47

Grumpy_chap said:

Nobody is saying that what has happened is correct or should have happened.

The comments are saying that, certainly against the original question, there is no fraud taken place for which the bank would be liable.

It is not clear that any crime has taken place - either fraud or theft - because there was never intent.

That leaves you with how to recover the situation.
This is a simple consumer matter of paid for services not adequately delivered.  The remedy is via the small claims court.
The individual has apparently disappeared for now.  That means you cannot serve court papers.

In the immediate term, there seems to be nothing you can do practically. 
That does not mean you have to totally suffer the loss as time may be a healer and present you with a route to a remedy.  Usually allowed up to 6 years to take action.
So - the individual might patch things up at hoe and move back in.
You might find another address for the individual.
You might find evidence that the individual is still officially residing at the address you have for him.
If one of these three events occur, you may be able to contact the individual and recover the funds.  Or the individual might not have any assets, thus making any recovery fruitless even if a court found in your favour.

Yep all understood. I know no one here is saying what has happened is correct. Similarly I'm not holding anyone here to account and I'm certainly not directing my exasperation at anyone here.

I just find it weird that, in some circumstances (ie mine) someone can make off with your cash, having not in any way fulfilled their part of the agreement. But they are not a criminal and have not committed a criminal act because they, apparently in the recent past have done some related things which suggest they didn't mean it to happen.

A general rant...my musings having accepted the inevitable consequence that in all probability nothing can be done.... Not directed at anyone here.

Grumpy_chap

gilbo47 said:

I just find it weird that, in some circumstances (ie mine) someone can make off with your cash, having not in any way fulfilled their part of the agreement. But they are not a criminal and have not committed a criminal act because they, apparently in the recent past have done some related things which suggest they didn't mean it to happen.

Well, consider another scenario where essentially the same thing happens.

Go into a department store and place an order for a piece of furniture, say £4k total.  Pay a £2k deposit (not by credit / debit card).  Furniture to be delivered in 12 weeks.  After 6 weeks the company goes into administration.  You are now an unsecured creditor to the tune of £2k.
No claim against the bank for fraud to reimburse you.
No claim against the company (gone).
Slim chance of recovering something eventually via the administrators.

I don't think in that scenario, you would be claiming fraud or theft.

In your case, you paid some money to a sole trader business for a patio.
The patio was not laid but the business has now ceased trading.
No claim against the bank.
No claim against the business (gone).
You may eventually track down the individual and recover something, possibly via the court.  

In fact, you scenario is possibly slightly better with the sole trader business than if it was a Ltd Co business as, if you locate the individual and they have any assets, those assets can not be so easily shielded from the business / recovery.

user1977

gilbo47 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Nobody is saying that what has happened is correct or should have happened.

The comments are saying that, certainly against the original question, there is no fraud taken place for which the bank would be liable.

It is not clear that any crime has taken place - either fraud or theft - because there was never intent.

That leaves you with how to recover the situation.
This is a simple consumer matter of paid for services not adequately delivered.  The remedy is via the small claims court.
The individual has apparently disappeared for now.  That means you cannot serve court papers.

In the immediate term, there seems to be nothing you can do practically. 
That does not mean you have to totally suffer the loss as time may be a healer and present you with a route to a remedy.  Usually allowed up to 6 years to take action.
So - the individual might patch things up at hoe and move back in.
You might find another address for the individual.
You might find evidence that the individual is still officially residing at the address you have for him.
If one of these three events occur, you may be able to contact the individual and recover the funds.  Or the individual might not have any assets, thus making any recovery fruitless even if a court found in your favour.

But they are not a criminal and have not committed a criminal act 

But why do you think that would make any difference to you? Even if it was a very criminal act, it doesn't give you any additional rights to get the money back. And even for cases of out and out fraud, the police and prosecutors aren't very interested in pursuing them anyway, so don't imagine you'd have the satisfaction of seeing them being punished years in the future when it eventually reaches court.