hogmaw Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 I was reading this and I can't understand why the law is prosecuting the builder for criminal damage. Surely if the roof hasn't been paid for, he is entitled to take the materials back? If I take something out of Tesco without paying for it I'd be arrested on the spot. But if I get a roof built and don't pay for it, then it's the builder who gets arrested for trying to take back what is his! This hides a big problem in the UK with the law on when something is legally owned & paid for - and when it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Why didn't the building just take a civil case against them? Ways and means. A trip to the claims court would be a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 If I take something out of Tesco without paying for it I'd be arrested on the spot. But if I get a roof built and don't pay for it, then it's the builder who gets arrested for trying to take back what is his! What about if you went to Tesco for some beans and they said they wouldn't have any for about 6 months, but they wanted the money for them anyway - then when you laughed at this stupid suggestion and walked out you later find they've come to your house and stolen all the beans from your cupboard? That's the idea I'm getting from the story, shoddy worksmanship is just as much a crime in this country that builders VERY often get away with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 What about if you went to Tesco for some beans and they said they wouldn't have any for about 6 months, but they wanted the money for them anyway - then when you laughed at this stupid suggestion and walked out you later find they've come to your house and stolen all the beans from your cupboard? Gets my vote for worst analogy ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 There was a builder on the TV about 2 years or so back, who, having built someone a porch, but not received payment, went and knocked it down, and took the spoil away. He wasn't prosecuted, but I seem to recall some shyster trying to lobby for a change in the law so the likes of this householder could get free extensions ad lib. Maybe said ridiculous law change has hit the statute books, New Labour have made it a speciality of theirs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meko Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Reminds me of one i saw on the reptile forum i go on. I once took a cheque with a cheque guarantee card..... Yes it bounced like a football I asked the bank why it had bounced it has a guarantee card...This Tw*t had closed his account a few months earlier but still had the cheque book and card so he was using them.... I got the Police involved as it is deliberate fraud I got the reptiles back with in a few days but got told I was not allowed to sell them until he had been to court the reason for this is If he got found not guilty of fraud he is entitled to have the reptiles back I sold them with in a few days CASH to someone else and i never heard anything from the police( But it was not only my cheque thay was a few he had been doing but I was the one who got his address off his driving license and wrote it on the back of the cheque ) So even though he paid with a bounced cheque, if he was found not guilty of fraud he could have the reptiles back without having to pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 So even though he paid with a bounced cheque, if he was found not guilty of fraud he could have the reptiles back without having to pay for them. That wouldn't have happened though would it. How could he have not been found guilty of fraud - buying something with a closed account... not much to discuss really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Gets my vote for worst analogy ever ----- anyways this is yet another example of people mixing criminal and civil laws. they are very separate entities and don't mix and match. e.g. the lizard case should have said the man may have a claim to ownership of the things if he was not guilty of fraud NOT that he owned them but then english law never did understand the principles of contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evinX Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 This country's law needs a whole going over by someone with a BRAIN, hear that...a BRAIN haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share Posted September 22, 2009 Why didn't the building just take a civil case against them? Ways and means. A trip to the claims court would be a good idea. OK so the bulider takes him to court. Wins the case, gets a judgement in his favour. Bailiffs come round, he doesn't let them in. Then what? If the man won't pay, he won't pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 You force the sale of the house or make him bankrupt to get his assets or arrest his wages. Where there is money there is a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Why didn't the building just take a civil case against them? That would be one hell of a building Matt. Would it need a solicitor or would it represent itself?? Either way, the law is an ass. There are two sides to every story but it seems that they had to have a public spat and get the Police involved to try to settle things... H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkirby Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 there was a programme on this a few weeks ago and the guy who chris was reffering to told his story, basically he built a conservatory and porch for a woman who then gave him excuse after excuse and then told him she couldnt pay as her husband had died!! anyway after seeing her husband a few days later he went to the police who said theres nothing you can do as its a civil matter, got a ccj against her which she just ignored. eventually he found out it was a council house and wrote to the council expaining his situation and he wanted to get his goods off their land and they agreed so he went the next day and removed the £15000 conservatory and porch. The law to protect "decent" tradesman is a joke and all too easy for the consumer to just say "sorry i cant afford it" after the jobs been done!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkirby Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 You force the sale of the house or make him bankrupt to get his assets or arrest his wages. Where there is money there is a way. on that programme they went through the whole process and its sh1te, you can get a judgement but you cant really enforce it or it costs a stupid amount to enforce it. there trying to change the law to make the court enforce any judgements once the ccj has been granted and all payments go via the courts and make it illegal to not pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted September 22, 2009 Author Share Posted September 22, 2009 You force the sale of the house or make him bankrupt to get his assets or arrest his wages. Where there is money there is a way. Sounds to me like more money - sorry, a LOT more money - has to be given to solicitors to get the law to act. Unless there is loads involved like over 10k it's probably not worth it and even then there is no guarantee. Once the judgement has been given, it should be up to the law courts to make sure payment is made. That's fundamental IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DODGYDODDS Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 We need to drop the ''Great'' out of Great Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.