Paying upfront for garden fence job

[conny]

Doesn't matter if he is a sole trader. Small claims courts deal with all manner of disputes from ones like yours to who is responsible for someone tripping over in the street.
You can't take money off people for goods/services, then not supply said goods/services, with impunity because you are a sole trader.

 

[mikeey84]

That wording is ambiguous enough to be useless! Given the level of grammar in most text messages, it could be he missed a comma, and means, as you thought not a business (, I'm a) sole trader.

But that's just a guess! I understand that the small claims procedure is pretty straight forward, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to get it started when he inevitably refuses you a refund.

I also understand that you should always pay the money to get it converted to a high court writ (£70 I understand) so that the high court enforcement officers can go and get the cash for you

 

[Ted Phillips]

Thanks again. Law of the land says you can’t waltz off with £450 is someone’s money. He obviously thinks the laws an ass.

 

[Ted Phillips]

That wording is ambiguous enough to be useless! Given the level of grammar in most text messages, it could be he missed a comma, and means, as you thought not a business (, I'm a) sole trader.
ain.

But that's just a guess! I understand that the small claims procedure is pretty straight forward, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to get it started when he inevitably refuses you a refund.

I also understand that you should always pay the money to get it converted to a high court writ (£70 I understand) so that the high court enforcement officers can go and get the cash for you

That wording is ambiguous enough to be useless! Given the level of grammar in most text messages, it could be he missed a comma, and means, as you thought not a business (, I'm a) sole trader.

But that's just a guess! I understand that the small claims procedure is pretty straight forward, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to get it started when he inevitably refuses you a refund.

I also understand that you should always pay the money to get it converted to a high court writ (£70 I understand) so that the high court enforcement officers can go and get the cash for you

Is that £70 on top of £35 online fee? Is that an option during on line process, or do you have to ring for that?

Also, is it recoverable? Just don’t want to fork out big sums trying to get our money back from the ##.

Many thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Is that £70 on top of £35 online fee? Is that an option during on line process, or do you have to ring for that?

Also, is it recoverable? Just don’t want to fork out big sums trying to get our money back from the ##.

No you win your claim first, which means he should pay up, including costs. If he still doesn't pay, you take out an High Court enforcement writ., which costs you £70. In other words you gamble your £35 to get it decided in court, then gamble a further £70 if you need to/ if he still doesn't pay up.

That £70 goes to the bailiff, who will chase the debt up on your behalf. They go into his property and give him one last chance to pay up the £450 + 35 + 70 + their extra fees on top + any expenses incurred by you which you claimed for. He either pays up or they seize his property to maybe twice the cost to sell second hand, so you get paid in full ++ and the bailiff gets paid too.

You just risk the £35 initially, then the extra £70 for enforcement later if he fails to pay up.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Thanks again. I’ve just rechecked the exact response again. He said “Not a business sole trader”.

Thought he meant, not a business, a sole trader.

God knows what he meant. Possibly neither a business or sole trader? Conversely, that he’s a sole trader, but not registered as a business? (My original take)

Don't delete those text messages and emails between you, print them out if you can or copy them with pen and paper.

 

[Ted Phillips]

Hi H

Thanks for explain fees process. You must be psychic, as just about to save everything onto main pc and print off.

Cheers

 

[Notch7]

It is...
Blackmail is an act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing either substantially true or false information about a person or people unless certain demands are met. It is often damaging information, and may be revealed to family members or associates rather than to the general public.

That is incorrect:
Unjustified threats of bad reviews would be considered blackmail in the everyday sense of the word, but whether they would be considered serious enough to constitute the statutory offence of blackmail under Section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (unwarranted demands made with menaces with a view to gain or to cause loss to another) is, other than in exceptional circumstances, doubtful.

It is a justified threat.

 

[Notch7]

“I’m not a business, but a sole trader”!!!

What an idiot.

a sole trader means he is personally liable for the debt and any of his assets can be seized by bailiffs.

You could use an alternative dispute procedure -its a telephone consultation at a time you both agree on (you dont speak to him, there are separate calls).

The risk is that he could agree to settle and pay..but doesnt

 

[Ted Phillips]

H All

Sent LBA today. (Signed for and first class) Due for delivery on Monday. The letter and envelope is addressed to Mr and Mrs, as money paid into her business bank account. Just out of interest, what happens if he/she refuse to accept delivery? I know Royal Mail will try a few timed and then return to me, but how will that affect the Small Claims process? Presumably, I just plough on with online application, and this evidence would be another nail in his coffin??

Thanks

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Just plough on with the claim, you have done your bit in trying to avoid it having to go to court. Any summonses sent out by a court, are legally assumed to have been delivered, if they have been posted. You have gone the extra step, by requiring proof of delivery.

 

[Ted Phillips]

Many thanks again Harry. Will keep you posted. I tweaked wording to give him two weeks to respond, but pretty certain he’ll just brazen it out. (Naively thinking he’s home free as a sole trader)

 

[Notch7]

It is...
Blackmail is an act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing either substantially true or false information about a person or people unless certain demands are met. It is often damaging information, and may be revealed to family members or associates rather than to the general public.

It isnt blackmail.

The statutory offence of blackmail under Section 21(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (unwarranted demands made with menaces with a view to gain or to cause loss)

There is no unwarranted demand.

Unfortunately threatening bad reviews is becoming all too common -hotels, restaurants etc get it quite often with a demand to a full refund.

In the case in this thread, I think it is entirely reasonable to give the builder the opportunity to make amends before a review is posted.

Often on trip advisor responses often say: 'why didnt you contact us first, so we could deal with your complaint before posting'.

In the matter of this thread, I hope the builder gives in soon

 

[Ted Phillips]

Hi

V quick update and query. Guy signed for LBA letter yesterday, so now waiting 14 days before submitting on line claim. I’m also curious about “enforcement action”. I was previously told of the advantages of obtaining a high court writ after the judgment. However the Gov.UK website advises that bailiffs can only be procured by applying to either a county court or the High Court if you’re owed between £600 and £5,000. As my claim is likely to be less than that (unless the incidental costs and interest mount up), is there still an advantage in paying £70 for the writ?

Thanks

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Sorry, yes - you would/may need a 'Warrant of Execution' from the County Court. It will still involve a bailiff claiming goods to be sold, to pay you.