..and finally, some good news!

[AJ sheffield]

If the civil courts are the only available option, then little wonder that an increasing number of builders are taking the law into their own hands.

In the early days it was confirmed to me by a CID officer that I had a good case of obtaining goods and services by deception against my crooked friend, and on the evidence that I had shown him, he could have him locked up, but, if I was to ever get my money, the best way was through the civil courts.

You want to talk about fraud???

It can be 'proven beyond doubt' that he even got his legal aid certificates fraudulently since all of the claims that got him and his wife their certificates were either conceded to, or rejected by, the court.

If you check out my website you will see all of the documentation in proof.

 

I wouldnt expect anything less if I ripped a builder off, good on him.

[Colin Peters]

And good on you mate for saying so.

[Tony Erikson]

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen. This is a serious matter. People who have civil debts must settle them through the civil courts. What you did was entirely and utterly wrong."

 

So he's basically saying anyone can rip a builder off and the law won't really help them? Rip away home owners, rip away.

[jake4jack200]

I wouldnt expect anything less if I ripped a builder off, good on him.

 

Agreed.

 

Its about time that the law swung in favour of people like this builder .

 

He has paid for the materials , supplied his labour and done the work .

 

Why the hell shouldnt he be able to take back what is legally his , IE , the materials ?

[Colin Peters]

I suppose the main problem is that the law has to apply to real builders like the above mentioned, and the dodgy "builders". So if you go to far in favour of the builder, you are giving carte blanche to the scam builders to fit something extremely badly, then when you don't pay they could just come and rip it out and fit it elsewhere, leaving the honest home-owner with no roof (or whatever).

 

I can't agree with that logic since circumstances alter cases and judge every case on it own merits

[HeadingNorth]

If the civil courts are the only available option, then little wonder that an increasing number of builders are taking the law into their own hands..

 

 

In which case they deserve to be convicted for criminal damage.

[rubydazzler]

So if you go to far in favour of the builder, you are giving carte blanche to the scam builders to fit something extremely badly, then when you don't pay they could just come and rip it out and fit it elsewhere, leaving the honest home-owner with no roof (or whatever).

However, the law is the law, and if you allow people to rip out their stuff without first going to court, the scam builders will be able to act with impunity.

But, if you'd had a cowboy builder in and refused to pay him, wouldn't it be to your advantage for him to come and rip it all out? It'd save you paying someone else to do it, after all.

[rubydazzler]

Not if it is your windows and doors, or roof, or something essential to your house. Assuming it needed doing in the first place, the people who fit your new will take it off anyway

For free? You could just have the new reliable and competent builder standing by with a tarp or two and then get on with the job asap ... and your brace of rottweillers slavering at their heels.

 

I think it could be quite amusing really. But then, I'm evil like that.

[rubydazzler]

Just seen this bit in the link ....

 

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen."

 

And yet they let baillifs do it all the time ....

[jake4jack200]

Just seen this bit in the link ....

 

"Going to someone's house and removing property because they would not pay their bills should not happen."

 

And yet they let baillifs do it all the time ....

 

Brilliant point , and sums up perfectly the legal system in this country.