Bank refusing refund for patio works not carried out

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

However, as you effectively accept, the relevant question isn't so much 'is it fraud' but 'does it fit within the criteria for recovering funds from the bank', so there isn't much value in getting bogged down in semantics.

[Deleted User] said:

I see previous posters have speculated that it's unlikely to be fraud because the guy was recommend, or because he'd done a decent job for someone else. All these factors are entirely irrelevant. If some saintly builder with 40 years of satisfied customers behind him one day finds himself in dire need of cash and runs off with the deposit from a customer, that's no less fraud than if it was Fred West.

I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court. In addition, the burden of proof in civil court is lower.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

I didn't read your post, but if you said that then I'm afraid you're wrong. The defendant's history is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether he set up his business in order to commit fraud, or whether he performed a thousand prior jobs honestly and to an impeccable standard, because that is not pertinent to the allegations. The only time that something like that would be relevant in court would be in a criminal court, where it might be used as mitigation, to demonstrate a spur of the moment decision as opposed to a planned campaign.

user1977

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

[Deleted User]

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

Additional to what? A civil court will award compensatory damages in the case of proven fraud.

user1977

[Deleted User] said:

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

Additional to what?

In the OP's case, additional to what the contractor owes them anyway for the work not carried out? 

PHK

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

View ENE , is right. The OP wouldn't have to prove (balance of probability)  Fraud in a civil case. Only what is called innocent misrepresentation, in this case that the tradesman said they could and would do the job but then they didn't. The damages would be rescission of the contract but return of the OPs funds and costs. 

Whether it's worth pursuing a case in this circumstance is another matter 

user1977

PHK said:

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

The damages would be rescission of the contract but return of the OPs funds and costs. 

But is that any different from what they're owed anyway? 

PHK

user1977 said:

PHK said:

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

The damages would be rescission of the contract but return of the OPs funds and costs. 

But is that any different from what they're owed anyway? 

Not necessarily, as well as legal costs there could be any additional costs in getting work done. Remember judges have a degree of discretion is cases like this and take into account things like the conduct of the parties, whether correct protocol has been followed (costs budget produced etc) and whether there was a part 36 offer. 

[Deleted User]

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court.

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

Do you have a citation for some additional kind of damages being payable where there's fraud involved? 

Additional to what?

In the OP's case, additional to what the contractor owes them anyway for the work not carried out? 

I've no idea if that would happen or not. The only point I made is that this is fraud, and would almost certainly be found to be so if tested in court.

gilbo47

[Deleted User] said:

I haven't read the bulk of the thread as I recently I decided to keep out of them. You can speculate as to why. But. What I will say is it is almost inconceivable that what you describe is not fraud. I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

You paid 20% deposit and four months later the guy turns up, spends four hours mucking about, then takes another 30% off you. After that, he never turns up again. Now we can

a) Believe he turned up knowing full well he wasn't going to continue with the job, and took the 30% with that in mind.

b) Leave our brains at the door and postulate that the very day after he'd taken your money, and four months after you'd paid him the initial deposit, something so terrible happens to him that not only is he unable to complete the job, ever, but he's unable to even speak about it.

I see previous posters have speculated that it's unlikely to be fraud because the guy was recommend, or because he'd done a decent job for someone else. All these factors are entirely irrelevant. If some saintly builder with 40 years of satisfied customers behind him one day finds himself in dire need of cash and runs off with the deposit from a customer, that's no less fraud than if it was Fred West.

In fact, as you describe it, it's not just fraud, it's classic fraud, almost cliched in its adherence to the template,

Thanks for chiming in. You've cleared up much confusion I had a few posts ago in this thread.