Customer not paying

[I Trippet]

Update:

She's paid the full original amount this morning, 2 days before the 2 weeks from date of being served would be up and I could apply for judgement. Cutting it fine, I was honestly expecting her to ignore it. Only thing is I've lost 50 quid by making the claim, don't know where I stand on that but I won't lose too much sleep over it.

 

[Electrics]

Update:

She's paid the full original amount this morning, 2 days before the 2 weeks from date of being served would be up and I could apply for judgement. Cutting it fine, I was honestly expecting her to ignore it. Only thing is I've lost 50 quid by making the claim, don't know where I stand on that but I won't lose too much sleep over it.

Bill her for the £50 for the claim. People like you are too nice and it lets them get away with it. Do you think a proper company would swallow the court fee and pay it themselves?

Make her pay for your time, effort, energy and costs.

 

[plugsandsparks]

That cost should be included in the claim, you can reject it and demand the full amount including court costs and interest.
She is trying to be clever, most business people know you have to pay the court costs

 

[Simon47]

Unknown to me she got another electrician to do the inspections a few days later who apparently passed them both, which I find hard to believe.

Interestingly, had she been daft enough to go to court with it, she would have had to produce those EICRs as evidence of your "wrongdoing" (I'm assuming she was taking the line of "your EICRs were rubbish and therefore you're incompetent"). At which point, if you were certain of your ground, you'd be able to report the other electrician - to their competent person scheme if they were a member.

Even solicitors will try it on. Maaany years ago (with some friends) I had a computer business, and we used the services of a local solicitor while setting up the business. We never noticed that they hadn't billed us for their time. Roll forward a few years, the original business had failed (lets say, more enthusiasm than business acumen ?), and a couple of us had set up a different one. Then we got a demand from the solicitor for some money - a partner was retiring and they realised we'd not been billed, so they billed us and demanded payment. They soon shut up when I pointed out that we had engaged them as officers of the first company company (which had by now been wound up) and our current company was not liable for the debt - and threatened to report them to their governing body if they persisted. They would have known before they even asked for it that they were in the wrong.

PS - I've also used the statutory interest thing in the past, you'd be amazed at the reasons/excuses some companies can come up with as to why it "doesn't apply to them".

 

[Risteard]

Interestingly, had she been daft enough to go to court with it, she would have had to produce those EICRs as evidence of your "wrongdoing" (I'm assuming she was taking the line of "your EICRs were rubbish and therefore you're incompetent"). At which point, if you were certain of your ground, you'd be able to report the other electrician - to their competent person scheme if they were a member.

Even solicitors will try it on. Maaany years ago (with some friends) I had a computer business, and we used the services of a local solicitor while setting up the business. We never noticed that they hadn't billed us for their time. Roll forward a few years, the original business had failed (lets say, more enthusiasm than business acumen ?), and a couple of us had set up a different one. Then we got a demand from the solicitor for some money - a partner was retiring and they realised we'd not been billed, so they billed us and demanded payment. They soon shut up when I pointed out that we had engaged them as officers of the first company company (which had by now been wound up) and our current company was not liable for the debt - and threatened to report them to their governing body if they persisted. They would have known before they even asked for it that they were in the wrong.

PS - I've also used the statutory interest thing in the past, you'd be amazed at the reasons/excuses some companies can come up with as to why it "doesn't apply to them".

I've had them try to omit the statutory interest and compensation from payment before. Seemingly the meaning of "statutory" is beyond some...

 

[I Trippet]

If it's possible for me to get it off her then I'll certainly try, she had ample opportunity to pay before even after warning I'd take legal action, I agree I shouldn't be out of pocket to get what I'm owed. Just not sure what the next step is, it's not very clear on the MCOL site. I don't even know if the letter sent to her included the court fee.

 

[UNG]

By what method did she pay you?

 

[I Trippet]

Bank transfer

 

[UNG]

I think I would be writing to her to advise that the payment is accepted without predjudice to the impending legal action due to the outstanding costs and interest accrued

 

[baldelectrician]

Had something like this years ago and I was advised that when it would still go to court and the court would award the fees only.

On a side note- if you get a CCJ / Decree wait 31 days before you hassle them and it will stay on the credit file

If a person settles a CCJ / decree within 30 days then it is not marked on the credit agencies, better to wait a few weeks to hammer a point home

 

[I Trippet]

I think I would be writing to her to advise that the payment is accepted without predjudice to the impending legal action due to the outstanding costs and interest accrued

Ok, but in terms of the online claim, how should I proceed? Although she's paid the original amount she hasn't responded with an admission or anything, so would I be best to request judgement, stating that has been paid but not the court cost?

 

[baldelectrician]

Ok, but in terms of the online claim, how should I proceed? Although she's paid the original amount she hasn't responded with an admission or anything, so would I be best to request judgement, stating that has been paid but not the court cost?

Yes
The fact that she has paid the original amount means she will find it hard to say she did not know about the debt.

Ask the court to award costs only.

 

[I Trippet]

I've just requested judgement and then looked at my account and she's paid the £50 yesterday. I've immediately updated to state it's been paid in full. Hope I've not got myself into a sticky situation because I didn't check my account for a couple of days. I just thought she wouldn't be paying it after only paying the original invoice.

 

[e-spark]

Anyone got any advice on what to do please? I'm owed nearly £400 for various work for a customer. The work included replacing light fittings and accessories, all of which I supplied. I also, soon after doing this work, did two EICRs for her. To cut a long story short she was very unhappy that I'd failed them both, despite being for very good reason. Unknown to me she got another electrician to do the inspections a few days later who apparently passed them both, which I find hard to believe. When I sent the invoice she replied and said she'd give me £60 for my time and that was being generous. I pointed out the price is for all the work I did before the inspection and that I was being generous for not charging for those. She seemed ok with that but two months have since passed and not had any response to two reminders, so now working out what to do next.

on your quotes state all materials supplied remain your property until the full balance is cleared, dont do any work until the quotation is approved via text or email.
ive had people ok a grand of work and say ive no money! first ask why they authorised work when they have no means of paying, then i have offered them a payment scheme they have to stick to, it shows a pattern of communication that you have done everything reasonably practical to work within their financial means. failing that tell them its small claims court or you removing your gear.
My insurance has legal protection to go after non payers too

 

[nicebutdim]

on your quotes state all materials supplied remain your property until the full balance is cleared, dont do any work until the quotation is approved via text or email.

I believe that once items are installed they're considered part of the fabric of a building and aren't so easily recoverable.

 

[e-spark]

I believe that once items are installed they're considered part of the fabric of a building and aren't so easily recoverable.

until uncle gripper turns up.....

 

[nicebutdim]

until uncle gripper turns up.....

There's always that; but I believe you run the risk of prosecution, despite technically owning the goods in question.

 

[Simon47]

It'll be fine. If you've updated to say it's paid in full then the court action wills top

I believe that once items are installed they're considered part of the fabric of a building and aren't so easily recoverable.

With the usual IANAL bit ...

If they won't pay for it, and won't let you recover possession of it, would that then fit a criminal charge of "theft by keeping" ? Possibly 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 :
3“Appropriates”.
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
The actions would appear to fit :
1Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Alternatively, fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 :
11Obtaining services dishonestly
(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another—
(a)by a dishonest act, and
(b)in breach of subsection (2).
(2)A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a)they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them,
(b)he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
(c)when he obtains them, he knows—
(i)that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or
(ii)that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
The tricky bit here being that all someone has to do is say that they intended to pay for them, but now don't have the money because <insert sob story> - and then it's hard to prove that they intend not to pay.

And in both cases, you'd have the uphill task of persuading the police to actually do anything. However, mentioning that failure to pay could result in prosecution for theft and/or fraud is likely to make all but the professional fraudsters take notice.

No doubt there's a sh*t load of case lore on this sort of stuff.

 

[baldelectrician]

It'll be fine. If you've updated to say it's paid in full then the court action wills top

With the usual IANAL bit ...

If they won't pay for it, and won't let you recover possession of it, would that then fit a criminal charge of "theft by keeping" ? Possibly 3(1) of the Theft Act 1968 :
3“Appropriates”.
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
The actions would appear to fit :
1Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Alternatively, fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 :
11Obtaining services dishonestly
(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another—
(a)by a dishonest act, and
(b)in breach of subsection (2).
(2)A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a)they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them,
(b)he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
(c)when he obtains them, he knows—
(i)that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or
(ii)that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
The tricky bit here being that all someone has to do is say that they intended to pay for them, but now don't have the money because <insert sob story> - and then it's hard to prove that they intend not to pay.

And in both cases, you'd have the uphill task of persuading the police to actually do anything. However, mentioning that failure to pay could result in prosecution for theft and/or fraud is likely to make all but the professional fraudsters take notice.

No doubt there's a sh*t load of case lore on this sort of stuff.

I have been stung before and have learned my lesson

Now EVERY job (above £50) gets terms and conditions and a quote / estimate together with cooling off terms

This separates out the wheat from the chaff

The ones that were going to try it on don't use you and the small amount who are at and do use you are fluffed as you have them sewn up like a kipper if they try and con you.