You know that builder who knocked down the porch and conservatory he built because the customer didn't pay him?

[LittleBella]

this one here

Well one thing I've puzzled over today and haven't heard addressed, is why didn't he just take her to court? Is it because he didn't want to spend any more money on trying to get money out of someone who obviously wasn't going to pay up? Is there any real legal redress against someone who won't pay?

I do remember years ago taking a dodgy builder to court, winning and then never hearing anything again. So it was a complete waste of time. Is this still how it works?

Message withdrawn

Oops, this case is not like yours.

The woman in question arranged work to be carried out that she had no way of paying for and almost brought a small business under. What can the law do about her? I can't believe people are defending her behaviour.

Message withdrawn

'i am saying the law deals with this stuff '

the law wasn't going to give this chap FA.

she knew that and it was part of the scam she used to try to get it for free.

Message withdrawn

he took back what was his.

he took back those materials.

i don't accept that someone should get all that by theft and left to get away with it, because that's what the law would do.

Well done him.

Message withdrawn

He did use the law.

He had an agreement with the people in the house and with the council's approval to upgrade a council house.

The people in the house didn't pay, bounced cheques and lied so he went to the council to try to sort it out and because the people in the house still wouldn't comply he was given permission by the council who own the house to take down his work.

So no he probaly didn't go to the courts as he didn't need to.

Message withdrawn

actually, in the real world, a man's business lost a huge amount of money to a scammer.

the council has lost money on the property because this scumbag isn't going to put it back the way it was.

the neighbours get to live next to a scamming low life whose house looks like crap and she doesn't care.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

so she won't fix the mess.

so that means she should be allowed to keep things she stole?

i don't see what's pragmatic about that at all.

violent?

when people take stuff down they smash it up.

that's how it's done.

council have siad they will reinstate the house and bill her for it. I guess its the only way they can hit her in her pocket where it hurts. They can;t charge her more on her rent for a private arragnement between her and the builder.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

the whole reason he went to the council to take it down is because she didn't pay.

evict her?

then she's homeless and they still have a place to clean up.

only once a day hurls now!

the heartburn is coming, though!

wahey.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I think that's what disturbed me about this story, the idea that the builder's only option was to knock down the porch etc.

He is still out of pocket because it cost him more labour and he still hasn't been paid for materials and labour in the first place.

I just wondered if going to court would have been a more profitable avenue, or whether it would have been a complete waste of time.

And if it would have been a complete waste of time, what does that say about the rule of law, social order etc.? Shouldn't courts work?