Invoice Dispute - What happens if it goes legal?
Discussion
I have a thread about a company that I engaged to carry out some electrical work for me. It is muddied somewhat by electricians arguing about what they are worth but my situation may start to take a legal turn so I'm bringing it over here, to the wise PH legal advice bureau 
In short....
Quote given for 3 items; adjusting some fittings/appliances, Changing some sockets, and a suspected split/joined main bonding (main earth line to the house).
Quote was 360 plus VAT.
On the day the engineer added a bonding to both the AGA and boiler oil lines which might as well have been the same wire as they originate and terminate in the same place.
Changed a socket back box and possibly a couple of socket faces.
AGA line bonding and socket backbox were invoiced as additional items - fair enough. 70 quid.
Also the 360 was invoiced 'as per quotation'.
I disputed that the main bonding work was done - they got back to me and say it was remedied by adding the boiler oil line bonding. This boiler oil line bonding was not mentioned in the initial inspection of the property, missed or overlooked but easy to see there was not one considering the lines for the AGA and boiler are an inch apart.
I request a full breakdown of the invoice, including the 3 quoted items. What was done and where. Knowing full well that they don't really have a substantial answer for the first 2 quoted items, and the split main bonding was not worked on at all (given that the problem does not exist).
They refuse to supply the breakdown and insist the work was done as per quotation, requesting payment.
I have replied, not accepting their explanation and re-requesting the full breakdown.
Question 1: Is substituting in the invoice the fitting of an oil line bonding for the boiler for the work on the suspected split/joined main bonding quoted acceptable. As I understand it the main bonding is a completely different entity to the oil line bondings?
Question 2: If I refuse to pay, based on this, what would/could their next course of action be? Selling the debt? Small claims?
Question 3: If small claims, do I have a valid argument? If bailiffs, what happens then?
Do I need to lawyer-up now? What sort of cost would I be looking at to explain this to a lawyer and prepare a defence, assuming they think I have the proverbial leg on which to support myself?
Total bill is about 430 plus VAT, which I think, done properly, should be closer to 200. I am happy to pay for the work done but take exception when they substitute quoted items for different work, especially when a duplicate item is invoiced at a much lower amount.
In short....
Quote given for 3 items; adjusting some fittings/appliances, Changing some sockets, and a suspected split/joined main bonding (main earth line to the house).
Quote was 360 plus VAT.
On the day the engineer added a bonding to both the AGA and boiler oil lines which might as well have been the same wire as they originate and terminate in the same place.
Changed a socket back box and possibly a couple of socket faces.
AGA line bonding and socket backbox were invoiced as additional items - fair enough. 70 quid.
Also the 360 was invoiced 'as per quotation'.
I disputed that the main bonding work was done - they got back to me and say it was remedied by adding the boiler oil line bonding. This boiler oil line bonding was not mentioned in the initial inspection of the property, missed or overlooked but easy to see there was not one considering the lines for the AGA and boiler are an inch apart.
I request a full breakdown of the invoice, including the 3 quoted items. What was done and where. Knowing full well that they don't really have a substantial answer for the first 2 quoted items, and the split main bonding was not worked on at all (given that the problem does not exist).
They refuse to supply the breakdown and insist the work was done as per quotation, requesting payment.
I have replied, not accepting their explanation and re-requesting the full breakdown.
Question 1: Is substituting in the invoice the fitting of an oil line bonding for the boiler for the work on the suspected split/joined main bonding quoted acceptable. As I understand it the main bonding is a completely different entity to the oil line bondings?
Question 2: If I refuse to pay, based on this, what would/could their next course of action be? Selling the debt? Small claims?
Question 3: If small claims, do I have a valid argument? If bailiffs, what happens then?
Do I need to lawyer-up now? What sort of cost would I be looking at to explain this to a lawyer and prepare a defence, assuming they think I have the proverbial leg on which to support myself?
Total bill is about 430 plus VAT, which I think, done properly, should be closer to 200. I am happy to pay for the work done but take exception when they substitute quoted items for different work, especially when a duplicate item is invoiced at a much lower amount.
if there is work done which you are happy with - pay for it.
Write them a letter explaining that the other work hasn't been done and therefore you will not be paying
Ask them to show evidence of the work done if they want payment
any small claims court process will throw it out if they can't demonstrate that they have done the work - evidence of a quotation is not evidence of work done!
Alasdair
Write them a letter explaining that the other work hasn't been done and therefore you will not be paying
Ask them to show evidence of the work done if they want payment
any small claims court process will throw it out if they can't demonstrate that they have done the work - evidence of a quotation is not evidence of work done!
Alasdair
You have 3 items on your quote - which ones did they do, which ones didn't they do?
1) Moving appliances - assume done as you didn't say they hadn't done it
2) Sockets - thats a yes
3) Earth bonding - Has the work that they did solved this issue? To be frank, them including for fixing a suspected fault on a quote was a bit silly.
If they have completed the work quoted for and the additional work is DEFINITELY extra, then you have to pay. If they haven't done what they quoted for, deduct a "fair amount" for the work not done and pay them that, along with a letter explaining how you have calculated the amount you have paid. YOu could argue that the earth bonding was the work required for (3) above, so the extra is disputed.
I'd pay them the £360 and write a pleasant letter and be done with it. They wont chase for £70, its just not worth it.
1) Moving appliances - assume done as you didn't say they hadn't done it
2) Sockets - thats a yes
3) Earth bonding - Has the work that they did solved this issue? To be frank, them including for fixing a suspected fault on a quote was a bit silly.
If they have completed the work quoted for and the additional work is DEFINITELY extra, then you have to pay. If they haven't done what they quoted for, deduct a "fair amount" for the work not done and pay them that, along with a letter explaining how you have calculated the amount you have paid. YOu could argue that the earth bonding was the work required for (3) above, so the extra is disputed.
I'd pay them the £360 and write a pleasant letter and be done with it. They wont chase for £70, its just not worth it.
You are justified to ask for an explanation of the invoice if you don't think that the work done was what was quoted.
If they fail to respond to a reasonable request and start proceedings then that would reflect badly on them in Court (although I would be amazed if they started proceedings for £400-odd).
In all likelihood they will get angry and possibly make threats about legal action and/or get their lawyer to send a threatening letter but for the amounts involved I doubt very much that they would actually bother commencing proceedings.
My advice would be to save yourself the bother of a fight and offer an amount which you consider to be fair for the work done (£200?). If they refuse then you can entrench and it will be a major pain for them. If they accept then everyone gets to move on with their lives.
If they fail to respond to a reasonable request and start proceedings then that would reflect badly on them in Court (although I would be amazed if they started proceedings for £400-odd).
In all likelihood they will get angry and possibly make threats about legal action and/or get their lawyer to send a threatening letter but for the amounts involved I doubt very much that they would actually bother commencing proceedings.
My advice would be to save yourself the bother of a fight and offer an amount which you consider to be fair for the work done (£200?). If they refuse then you can entrench and it will be a major pain for them. If they accept then everyone gets to move on with their lives.
PH5121 said:
The bonding to the oil would be classed as main bonding. If you don't pay I would imagine they would initiate a county court proceeding against you.
Is the main bonding not the connection from the Consumer unit to the metal rod buried in the ground?Edited by PH5121 on Tuesday 19th May 10:32
oilydan, there's a proper procedure they should follow called 'Pre-Action Protocol'.
Before initiating proceedings, they should write to you, outlining the nature of their claim, and telling you what you need to do to avoid it.
This gives you the opportunity to request from them a breakdown.
If they were to initiate their proceedings whilst discussion was going on, then if it went to court, they would likely not be awarded the court costs (£60 or so total).
If it were me, I'd ask for a breakdown, and then pay for the things that were done. As others have said, not many £400 cases go to court. It's too much hassle.
However, if you were to agree to part pay, then not only would they be taking to you court for less, and thus it would be even less worthwhile, they would be claiming for the 'dodgy' parts of the claim only.
You should pay them some though. To cover your behind, I would write to them confirming that you have no problem with paying for quoted works completed, however, works were competed that were not quoted for, thus you require a breakdown. Explain that on receipt of that breakdown, you will gain advice, and pay accordingly.
Before initiating proceedings, they should write to you, outlining the nature of their claim, and telling you what you need to do to avoid it.
This gives you the opportunity to request from them a breakdown.
If they were to initiate their proceedings whilst discussion was going on, then if it went to court, they would likely not be awarded the court costs (£60 or so total).
If it were me, I'd ask for a breakdown, and then pay for the things that were done. As others have said, not many £400 cases go to court. It's too much hassle.
However, if you were to agree to part pay, then not only would they be taking to you court for less, and thus it would be even less worthwhile, they would be claiming for the 'dodgy' parts of the claim only.
You should pay them some though. To cover your behind, I would write to them confirming that you have no problem with paying for quoted works completed, however, works were competed that were not quoted for, thus you require a breakdown. Explain that on receipt of that breakdown, you will gain advice, and pay accordingly.
It would be the main earthing conductor that goes to an earth rod outside from the consumer unit, if you don't have an earth provided by your electricity supplier.
The term main bond refers to an equipotential earthing conductor that goes to incoming services such as water, gas, oil, structural steel, lightning protection from the consumer unit or earth block.
The term main bond refers to an equipotential earthing conductor that goes to incoming services such as water, gas, oil, structural steel, lightning protection from the consumer unit or earth block.
Edited by PH5121 on Tuesday 19th May 13:31
Can you elaborate on what 'adjusting some appliances / fittings' means? How many sockets did they say they were changing? How many did they actually change? Was the back-box replacement on the quote?
Can you quote the exact wording of the quote, describe exactly what was done, and quote the exact wording on the invoice? Did they tell you there would be an extra charge for bonding the oil pipes, or did they just take it upon themselves to get on with it?
Can you quote the exact wording of the quote, describe exactly what was done, and quote the exact wording on the invoice? Did they tell you there would be an extra charge for bonding the oil pipes, or did they just take it upon themselves to get on with it?
Ganglandboss said:
Can you elaborate on what 'adjusting some appliances / fittings' means? How many sockets did they say they were changing? How many did they actually change? Was the back-box replacement on the quote?
Can you quote the exact wording of the quote, describe exactly what was done, and quote the exact wording on the invoice? Did they tell you there would be an extra charge for bonding the oil pipes, or did they just take it upon themselves to get on with it?
The 3 items quoted at 360 pounds were:Can you quote the exact wording of the quote, describe exactly what was done, and quote the exact wording on the invoice? Did they tell you there would be an extra charge for bonding the oil pipes, or did they just take it upon themselves to get on with it?
(3)A number of accessories are not fixed properly
(4)A number of sockets are worn with poor contacts
(13)Main bonding appears to be split/joined as only one conductor in consumer unit (a note stated that further investigation would be required)
There were 21 items on the 'remedial actions' list after the survey, most of which I corrected myself. Only these 3 items were quoted.
They were requested to give details on the first 2 above so I could do them myself, Their response was "With reference with the Items (3) various light switches on to boxes are not screw back correctly we have allowed to re -tap and fit the correct screws this is minor a small cost whilst carrying out the other jobs, we can show you whilst on site.
Items (4) is where the older sockets do not switch off with definite action or struggle to enter a plug top correctly, some in the study area and kitchen our engineer found some like this in the first floor rooms yet again we will show you whilst on site and leave the old worn ones with you."
Also included on the list was:
Could not locate bonding to oil line feeding AGA
Which I tried to locate myself but found there to be none so we asked him to carry this out as additional.
On the day the engineer was outside the study where the meter is, on the phone to the inspecting engineer (I could hear him through a door) and he said that there was no problem with the main bonding ie. not split/joined.
He added the Aga line bonding and noted that there was also no boiler line bonding so this was done at the same time(run in parallel from consumer unit to the twin oil pipes.
He then spent some time in the lounge with a twin outlet that was corroded and changed the back-box and front panel. He may have changed one or two other front panels but I cannot be sure as I was not with him the whole time.
He then checked the items that I had fixed - some light fittings, a socket too close to the sideboard and some other bits and pieces.
I signed a day job sheet for:
AGA earth bond 1 hour
Back box replacement 1/4 hour
Inspecting remedials put right by customer. 1/4 hour
10m Earth
Earth clamp
2 gang back box
He was there for a total of about 3-3.5 hours.
The invoice is for:
Carrying out works as per quotation 361.70
Additional works as per day worksheet Install AGA bond/Replace Backbox/inspection: Labour 43.50
and materials 26.78
Plus VAT
They refuse to give any details on the first 2 items in the quote; what was fixed and where, along with broken out costs. No 'old worn sockets' were left with us.
When questioned they told me that the split/joined main bonding was remedied by adding the boiler bonding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff