🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Stumbles" <john.stumbles@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:73fheuFsrg5gU2@mid.individual.net...
> I'm in the unfortunate position of finding myself in a dispute with a
> customer over payment for work I did for her.
>
> The customer asked me (a plumber) to fix an immersion heater. I found
> that the heater had failed and asked if she wanted me to replace it, which
> she agreed to. While trying (with reasonable care) to remove the broken
> heater from the hot water cylinder I found that the cylinder was
> splitting. (I've replaced immersion heaters many times before but not had
> a cylinder fail whilst doing so, though I'm always a little wary that they
> might.) Anyway at this point it becomes new hot water cylinder time. I
> told her this and went out and bought a new cylinder and started work to
> replace the old one but after maybe half an hour of working the customer
> made an excuse (as far as I can make out) for asking me to stop work and
> to leave.
>
> She then emailed to ask me for a lower quote. (We hadn't talked about
> money
> directly, only about the time I estimated the replacement would take, but
> I
> publish my rates on my website so I guess she knew how much this equated
> to.) I offered to do the remaining work at a lower rate or - if she wanted
> to get someone else to do it - to just charge her for part of the time I'd
> already spent and the cost of the new cylinder and fittings I'd supplied.
>
> Now she's contacted me to say she's had the work done (very cheaply) but
> that she blames me (in a rather rambling way) for the failure of her
> original cylinder and - bottom line - offering less than half of even the
> cost of the new cylinder I bought for her.
>
> I'm inclined to pursue this through the small claim track / money claim
> online if needs be, if only for the entertainment value :-/. I would
> hope (though I'm not too sure, given some of her rather rambling and
> disjointed communications) that indicating that I'd be prepared to do this
> would have the desired effect. I've swotted up at
> * https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/
> * http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm
> * https://www.nationalmediationhelpline.com/index.php
> (though for the amount of this claim mediation would seem to be
> disproportionately expensive)
>
> My question is:
>
> I'm prepared to settle (if she plays ball and without going through
> the courts) for just the cost of the materials I've supplied (under £200)
> but if I were to pursue my claim through the courts I'd ask for my labour
> as well (an extra £100). Can I do this? In other words if I say I'd accept
> £200 and she refuses, does that prevent me from claiming (or foul up my
> claim for) the higher amount?
>
> Any other hints, tips, moral guidance etc? ;-)

You can certainly write her a letter, which you should mark "Without
Prejudice", in which you offer to settle for a lower sum but tell her that
at the expiry of a time limit (say 21 days) you will be commencing County
Court proceedings for the higher sum.  That is standard practice. Even if
she shows your letter to the judge he won't hold it against you - he will
admire your fair-minded attempt to settle out of court.

Your problem of course will be to convince a judge that you could not have
removed the old immersion heater without causing serious damage to the
cylinder.  He might need some convincing. Ideally, you'd want to call an
"expert" (a plumbing expert or experienced plumber who is not a friend but
is seen as impartial) to prepare a written report and to give evidence in
court if necessary, but the sum involved probably doesn't justify that.
Nevertheless, a brief letter from such a person might help persuade the
customer to pay up.

A judge might also say that you should have warned her that this might
happen before you embarked on the work. She might have opted not to get the
immersion heater replaced yet, especially if it was just a back-up to a gas
boiler.

The Todal wrote:

>
> Your problem of course will be to convince a judge that you could not
> have removed the old immersion heater without causing serious damage
> to the cylinder.  He might need some convincing. Ideally, you'd want
> to call an "expert" (a plumbing expert or experienced plumber who is
> not a friend but is seen as impartial) to prepare a written report
> and to give evidence in court if necessary, but the sum involved
> probably doesn't justify that. Nevertheless, a brief letter from such
> a person might help persuade the customer to pay up.
>
> A judge might also say that you should have warned her that this might
> happen before you embarked on the work. She might have opted not to
> get the immersion heater replaced yet, especially if it was just a
> back-up to a gas boiler.

As a keen do- it- yourselfer, I have a lot of sympathy with the plumber in
this case. I invariably find that jobs escalate in unforeseeable directions.
If, as the plumber says, he has replaced numerous immersion heaters without
trouble, it is reasonable that he should not have warned the customer of
this apparently remote possibility. Clearly, the customer lost confidence in
the plumber once things started to go wrong.  You cannot blame her for
getting somebody else in to finish off the work in the circumstances.

The problem with going to court over this case, is that it is quite possible
the customer will turn up with her own 'expert evidence' from the plumber
who fitted the new cylinder. He may say that the cylinder was in reasonable
condition and the split was probably caused by the original plumber. The
judge might accept this evidence.  In short, this case could go horribly
wrong for the original plumber if it actually goes to court.  Add to that
the considerable time that it will take him to issue proceedings and prepare
his case.  He may be better off to accept a small loss on the materials and
write off the time he has already spent, however unjust that appears to him
to be.

On 31 Mar, 22:50, John Stumbles <john.stumb...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> The customer asked me (a plumber) to fix an immersion heater. I found
> that the heater had failed and asked if she wanted me to replace it, which
> she agreed to. While trying (with reasonable care) to remove the broken
> heater from the hot water cylinder I found that the cylinder was
> splitting. (I've replaced immersion heaters many times before but not had
> a cylinder fail whilst doing so, though I'm always a little wary that they
> might.) Anyway at this point it becomes new hot water cylinder time. I
> told her this and went out and bought a new cylinder and started work to
> replace the old one but after maybe half an hour of working the customer
> made an excuse (as far as I can make out) for asking me to stop work and
> to leave.
>
> She then emailed to ask me for a lower quote. (We hadn't talked about money
> directly, only about the time I estimated the replacement would take, but I
> publish my rates on my website so I guess she knew how much this equated
> to.) I offered to do the remaining work at a lower rate or - if she wanted
> to get someone else to do it - to just charge her for part of the time I'd
> already spent and the cost of the new cylinder and fittings I'd supplied.
>
> Now she's contacted me to say she's had the work done (very cheaply) but
> that she blames me (in a rather rambling way) for the failure of her
> original cylinder and - bottom line - offering less than half of even the
> cost of the new cylinder I bought for her.

The problem in these situations is that customers dislike nasty and
expensive surprises, especially when they feel they're already paying
the earth for your expertise, and especially when they're stapped for
cash themselves.

Unless you know them personally, then the costs involved often affect
their judgment of you to the extent they are more willing to believe
that you have failed to take reasonable care and have broken the
cylinder, rather than the more likely case that the cylinder was old
and/or poor quality and needed to be replaced. And of course, we've
all watched Rogue Traders.

Legally speaking, if this was a straightforward case of a cylinder
being susceptible to damage because it is old or poor quality, then on
the balance of probabilities I think the court will probably take your
word for it, that the damage was not intentional, it was certainly
*not* accidental damage, but was damage arising from an inherent fault
in the materials you were given to work with - but I hope you kept
photographs!

That said, unless it's a matter of high principle, you'd probably be
better investing your time and skills elsewhere for a better return,
and develop a strategy of avoiding this kind of situation in future.
Frankly, in the kind of situation you were in (which I am wholly
sympathetic to), it would probably be better to either demand a
deposit for the materials, or simply say to the customer that he/she
will have to find another plumber and that you will not charge her for
work done, and this way you can avoid throwing good money after bad.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:10:04 +0100, Ste wrote:

> The problem in these situations is that customers dislike nasty and
> expensive surprises, especially when they feel they're already paying
> the earth for your expertise, and especially when they're stapped for
> cash themselves.
>
> Unless you know them personally, then the costs involved often affect
> their judgment of you to the extent they are more willing to believe
> that you have failed to take reasonable care and have broken the
> cylinder, rather than the more likely case that the cylinder was old
> and/or poor quality and needed to be replaced. And of course, we've
> all watched Rogue Traders.
>
> Legally speaking, if this was a straightforward case of a cylinder
> being susceptible to damage because it is old or poor quality, then on
> the balance of probabilities I think the court will probably take your
> word for it, that the damage was not intentional, it was certainly
> *not* accidental damage, but was damage arising from an inherent fault
> in the materials you were given to work with - but I hope you kept
> photographs!
>
> That said, unless it's a matter of high principle, you'd probably be
> better investing your time and skills elsewhere for a better return,
> and develop a strategy of avoiding this kind of situation in future.
> Frankly, in the kind of situation you were in (which I am wholly
> sympathetic to), it would probably be better to either demand a
> deposit for the materials, or simply say to the customer that he/she
> will have to find another plumber and that you will not charge her for
> work done, and this way you can avoid throwing good money after bad.

Thanks everyone. There are a lot of emotional/ir-rational issues on both
sides: the customer's (as outlined by Ste) and mine (it's not just a job
for me: I put out big time to fix things for my customers and feel
personally upset that she reacted as she did). But that's neither here nor
there, legally, and I know I have to be professional about it - business,
not personal as they said in some film or other ;-). And I realise that
pursuing this through the courts, if it comes to that, isn't the most
profitable use of my time, but then I do some plumbing/heating jobs
where I basically charge little or nothing but do it for the learning
experience, and this seems like a useful learning experience in a
different but valuable field. As long as it's not /too/ expensive!

--
John Stumbles

Testiculate [v.t]
    To wave one's arms around while talking bollocks.

John Stumbles;623903 Wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:10:04 +0100, Ste wrote:
> -
> The problem in these situations is that customers dislike nasty and
> expensive surprises, especially when they feel they're already paying
> the earth for your expertise, and especially when they're stapped for
> cash themselves.
>
> Unless you know them personally, then the costs involved often affect
> their judgment of you to the extent they are more willing to believe
> that you have failed to take reasonable care and have broken the
> cylinder, rather than the more likely case that the cylinder was old
> and/or poor quality and needed to be replaced. And of course, we've
> all watched Rogue Traders.
>
> Legally speaking, if this was a straightforward case of a cylinder
> being susceptible to damage because it is old or poor quality, then
> on
> the balance of probabilities I think the court will probably take
> your
> word for it, that the damage was not intentional, it was certainly
> *not* accidental damage, but was damage arising from an inherent
> fault
> in the materials you were given to work with - but I hope you kept
> photographs!
>
> That said, unless it's a matter of high principle, you'd probably be
> better investing your time and skills elsewhere for a better return,
> and develop a strategy of avoiding this kind of situation in future.
> Frankly, in the kind of situation you were in (which I am wholly
> sympathetic to), it would probably be better to either demand a
> deposit for the materials, or simply say to the customer that he/she
> will have to find another plumber and that you will not charge her
> for
> work done, and this way you can avoid throwing good money after bad.-
>
> Thanks everyone. There are a lot of emotional/ir-rational issues on
> both
> sides: the customer's (as outlined by Ste) and mine (it's not just a
> job
> for me: I put out big time to fix things for my customers and feel
> personally upset that she reacted as she did). But that's neither here
> nor
> there, legally, and I know I have to be professional about it -
> business,
> not personal as they said in some film or other ;-). And I realise
> that
> pursuing this through the courts, if it comes to that, isn't the most
> profitable use of my time, but then I do some plumbing/heating jobs
> where I basically charge little or nothing but do it for the learning
> experience, and this seems like a useful learning experience in a
> different but valuable field. As long as it's not /too/ expensive!
>
> --
> John Stumbles
>
> Testiculate [v.t]
> To wave one's arms around while talking ********.

I recently found myself on the other side of a similar dispute. I
suspect I am far more technically minded than your client and was only
having work done that required a CORGI registered "professional". In my
case he caused damage by heavy handed removal of a part that he himself
described as "frequently breaks mate". To compound the error it was
obvious (and he agreed) that there was an alternative way of getting
access which would not have risked the damage. Finally, he ordered the
wrong part as a replacement!

I refused to pay for the replacement part and the labour involved in
fitting. After some dispute the boss of the firm agreed and said he
would deduct the cost from the man's wages!

Having run my own business for almost 30 years I think it is ESSENTIAL
to make a client aware of any possible problems before they happen. You
say that you were aware that this could happen but you had not personaly
had the problem before?

It will be very had to for a client to accept this AFTER the event, it
will seem as if you are making excuses for your mistake (although I'm
sure you are not).

I would learn from this but not take it to court. For reasons others
have mentioned you may well not win. You may also run into a client who
will "bad mouth" you to everybody who will listen and the local press.

Sorry.




--
Uncertain

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:25:09 +0100, Uncertain wrote:

> I recently found myself on the other side of a similar dispute. I
> suspect I am far more technically minded than your client and was only
> having work done that required a CORGI registered "professional". In my
> case he caused damage by heavy handed removal of a part that he himself
> described as "frequently breaks mate". To compound the error it was
> obvious (and he agreed) that there was an alternative way of getting
> access which would not have risked the damage. Finally, he ordered the
> wrong part as a replacement!
>
> I refused to pay for the replacement part and the labour involved in
> fitting. After some dispute the boss of the firm agreed and said he
> would deduct the cost from the man's wages!

I'd have thought this would raise various legal questions. Under what - if
any - conditions of employment is it acceptable for an employer to
deduct from an employee's wages in this way? And if the guy was generally
incompetent then surely his employer should either get him trained so that
he becomes competent or fire him?


> Having run my own business for almost 30 years I think it is ESSENTIAL
> to make a client aware of any possible problems before they happen. You
> say that you were aware that this could happen but you had not personaly
> had the problem before?

With the benefit of hindsight I would have warned her about that
possibility. But where do you stop - there are always various disastrous
possibilities that you can only forsee with hindsight :-) And anyway, with
the benfit of hindsight I wouldn't have taken that job on!

> It will be very had to for a client to accept this AFTER the event, it
> will seem as if you are making excuses for your mistake (although I'm
> sure you are not).

Indeed. With benefit of hindsight etc, as I say, but it wasn't an "Oh shit,
I f**ked up there" incident (and I admit there have been one or two of
those - and in those cases I actually paid out to the client to sort things
out).

> I would learn from this but not take it to court.

Well I'm hoping not to have to take it to court, but it may help to avoid
that if I do everything in a way that shows that I'm prepared, and going
about it the right way, to do so if necessary.

> For reasons others
> have mentioned you may well not win. You may also run into a client who
> will "bad mouth" you to everybody who will listen and the local press.

I can live with that. The ones that will listen to her are the ones I
probably don't want to work for anyway, and I doubt that even the local
press would get excited about it, or that if they did, it would stick in
the public mind much. By far the majority of my work is either repeat
business or personal recommendation from existing customers so the people
who do come to me tend to have much stronger recommendations for me that
she could put against me, if it came to that.

--
John Stumbles

How odd of God                     But not so odd as those who choose
To choose the Jews                   A Jewish god, yet spurn the Jews

On 2 Apr, 15:25, Uncertain <uncerta...@REMOVETHIShotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Having run my own business for almost 30 years I think it is ESSENTIAL
> to make a client aware of any possible problems before they happen. You
> say that you were aware that this could happen but you had not personaly
> had the problem before?
>
> It will be very had to for a client to accept this AFTER the event, it
> will seem as if you are making excuses for your mistake (although I'm
> sure you are not).

I agree in principle, though I can fully sympathise that it is
difficult in practice to inform a customer at the outset of any and
all potential problems, where perhaps just one of a thousand problems
will occur in only one in every thousand jobs.

On Apr 1, 11:55 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
> As a keen do- it- yourselfer, I have a lot of sympathy with the plumber in
> this case. I invariably find that jobs escalate in unforeseeable directions.
> If, as the plumber says, he has replaced numerous immersion heaters without
> trouble, it is reasonable that he should not have warned the customer of
> this apparently remote possibility.

Years ago I needed to replace a pendant lamp holder.  While replacing
it, I found the rubber insulation on the pendant cord had perished.  I
went to replace that and could not undo the ceiling rose so I had to
smash the cover off.  I gingerly replaced that too hoping that the
wiring behind it was not perished either (it was not!).

John Stumbles;624281 Wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:25:09 +0100,
>
> I'd have thought this would raise various legal questions. Under what -
> if
> any - conditions of employment is it acceptable for an employer to
> deduct from an employee's wages in this way? And if the guy was
> generally
> incompetent then surely his employer should either get him trained so
> that
> he becomes competent or fire him?
>


Yes, I couldn't agree more! But not my problem!




--
Uncertain