Emergency plumber- have I been scammed? And what can I do?

WIAWSNB

I'd love to know what diddlysquate says about what took place.

DS23, how did the plumber shut off the water? And how quickly was this done?

And when did the agreement on ballpark figures come in to this - before or after he turned up? Before or after the water was shut off?

TroubledTarts

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82012951#Comment_82012951

Not once did I mention sharing private information.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82016743#Comment_82016743

I didn't say you did. But if the OP responded to your post with a breakdown of the bill (rather than a yes/no answer) then that could be personally identifiable information, which might not be in the OP's interests to share on a public forum.

WIAWSNB

How are you getting on with this, DS23?

Based on what you have told us, I think it's clear you have been 'exploited' at the very least. Just how obviously and badly will depend on the details.

If the insurance co doesn't cover the cost, and the plumbing co is adamant the bill stays fixed, then - depending on the detail - you may have ways to apply pressure on them.

stuart45

I'm not sure there is anything she can do in law to recover some of the money from the firm. In recent years some tradesmen have received prison sentences when they were convicted of fraud, but in this case she was given and accepted the estimate. Most of the serious cases where a heavy fine or a prison sentence was given involved a vulnerable adult, and were charged for either really sub standard work, or for work that wasn't carried out.

I'm not a legal expert, so I can't really give 100% accurate advice, but would guess that trying to recover some of the money would be really difficult.

If they had refused to pay full amount, and said they thought it should be closer to the lower estimate, it would be up to the plumber to take them to court to recover the money.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82017561#Comment_82017561

I agree with your summation stuart45. If the bill has already been paid, which from the start it sounded like it has, then the OP's only recourse regarding the amount of the bill would be some form of legal action to demonstrate the bill was unlawful. There's a risk here of helpful forum folk giving the OP false hope of being able to reclaim a substantial proportion of the bill if the insurers don't pay out.

I appreciate WIAWSNB has put 'exploited' in inverted commas, but it is one thing to sympathise with someone and telling them they've been exploited, and something different to demonstrate that to a court.

Overall I don't see much to support a legal case for 'exploitation'. This isn't a case where a lonely little old lady has had her life savings taken by a cold-caller who said they'd trim her front boundary hedge before the council prosecuted her, and then presented a £4500 bill after doing the work.

The OP called the plumber in to do a job. The plumber gave a cost estimate range before doing the work. The OP wasn't alone, and there is no mention of any vulnerability. AIUI it was the OP's dad who said they didn't have a choice, not the plumber. There was some level of joint decision making by the OP and their dad, and this was a multigenerational decision (i.e. not a pair of very young/old people). And there was a genuine need for the full extent of the work (as described) to be done then and there. [Note: none of the foregoing is to blame the OP, I think they made the right decision in the circumstances]

The law allows people to pay through the nose for work rather than making other arrangements (such as home emergency cover). I don't see it likely a court would interfere in that, unless there is something in the circumstances that makes it imperative the law should provide such protection after the event.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82017561#Comment_82017561

I didn't say anything about the law. And I look forward to hearing the whole story.

If, for example, the plumber came in, saw water cascading through the ceiling, and stood there whilst delivering their multi-£k 'estimate', with clearly no intention of acting unless the OP said 'YES! Whatevs!', then that will not look good on either online review sites, local Facebook pages, Martin Lewis' forum, BBC RADIO 4's You&Yours, or…

Pressure.

WIAWSNB

But, speaking of the Law, it's worth looking at Undue Influence and Duress in terms of how this 'contract' was made. And whether it can be voided.

Worth talking to CAB.

Some key points, which is why I asked the OP to describe in some detail what actually took place; is the absurdly vague 'estimate' for the cost of repair. £1.2 to £6k, really?

What was the purpose of this vague 'estimate'? I suggest it was almost certainly to imply, "£1.2k - phew, that doesn't sound too bad…" to, "£6k! Lawdie! Phew - it turned out to be only £4.5k…".

I'd love the OP to provide details, including the presumably itemised invoice, and including number of hours taken.

And, OP - do you have Legal Protection included in your house insurance?

Don't lose sight of the simple fact the OP had 'no choice'.

OP, any Trade bodies covering this plumber? Where did you find them - Checkatrade or anything like that?

stuart45

You could well be right about Undue influence law, but you'd need someone with a lot more legal knowledge than me to answer that one.

Like you, I'd be interested to know how this one turns out, but very often the OP's don't get back unless they are regulars. I'd don't know any plumbers who actually charge that much, even though they aren't cheap. A lot depends on where you live. For example in London you don't have to worry about a reputation as much, whereas where I live now everyone would know about how much the plumber was going to charge before he knew himself.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82018399#Comment_82018399

Don't lose sight of the simple fact the OP had 'no choice'.

It isn't a "fact" and putting "no choice" in inverted commas doesn't alter that.

The OP or their dad could have said "No" and paid the plumber for the work/callout done to that point. They could have phoned the insurance company for advice, or asked the plumber to wait while they phoned the partner or another plumber. [This is not a criticism of the OP, I maintain they made the right decision for them in the situation]

Don't confuse making the best choice in the circumstances with "no choice".

As for "Undue Influence and Duress" - IANAL, but in my previous post I made the point that the circumstances the OP described it doesn't have the characteristics of 'exploitation'. The OP said nothing about the plumber making threats or threatening/using violence. If you really think there could be mileage in pursuing this line you should google "affirmation".

Meanwhile, the insurance company's response is what matters next.