Client not paying......
Discussion
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
When he fixed it, it became a fixture. Up until then it was a chattel.
I thought that might be the answer. For things like kitchen units, that is almost certainly true in all cases. For things like a TV aerial (which is what the OP is talking about removing) it's a lot less clear cut. And where the parties have agreed contractually that property in the thing supplied will not pass until it has been paid for, their common intention must be that it would remain under the ownership of the supplier - ie a common intention it would remain a chattel (at least) until paid for. 
Sent her an email this morning giving 7 days, put read receipt and delivery receipt on it.
Nothing back, not even a delivery receipt, so I guess it is straight to a solicitors letter!
I have texted her, requesting she lets me know her new details but I doubt very much that she will reply.
Will have to wait and see.
Nothing back, not even a delivery receipt, so I guess it is straight to a solicitors letter!
I have texted her, requesting she lets me know her new details but I doubt very much that she will reply.
Will have to wait and see.
singlecoil said:
Any particular reason for that?
Yes, a few. There are a few ways of approaching the fixtures/chattels question. One way is to ask whether the chattel is fixed to the land so that the land can be better enjoyed, or so that the fixture can be better enjoyed. Eg: fitted kitchen cabinets - the former (they are part of using the kitchen). White goods - the latter. Freestanding kitchen cabinets that are secured to a back wall for stability - probably the latter, but could be argued either way. A mirror screwed into a bathroom wall - the former (part of using the bathroom). A mirror resting on a mantlepiece - the latter. A tv aerial? It's there so you can enjoy watching the TV, not enjoy the living room (cf: a TV wouldn't be considered a fixture even if bolted to the wall). Conversely the aerial cable from the roof through the house to the TV would certainly be a fixture, so if the cable is a fixture, why shouldn't the aerial also be a fixture.
AIUI a standard form contract of sale for land gives the seller the option to stipulate whether the aerial is included in the sale or not. But then that's also the case for white goods (chattels) and light switches (fixtures), so I'm not sure that sheds much light (haha) on the point either way.
Not clear cut.
jas xjr said:
if i was the op , i would disconnect it
I daresay, but even if that turned out not to be theft, it would still be problematic for the op when it goes to court.OP: Client didn't pay
Client: Equipment doesn't work
OP: It was working when I left
Client: It doesn't work now
Judge to OP: Why not go to client's house and put it right?
OP: It won't work now because I removed the aerial
...
singlecoil said:
So bearing that in mind, would you advise the OP that it's ok to remove the aerial?
Subject to seeing the OP's t&cs and concluding there is a valid RoT clause in them, yes. The question of whether an aerial is a chattel or a fixture in the abstract isn't the question here. The question here is whether, in light of the contract between the parties, it remains the property of the OP. If it does under the contract then neither party can have intended that it should form part of the property as a fixture. There are obvs separate questions about getting access to the aerial, and whether or not that involves a trespass.
There's a certain class of people who contract for services to be provided and who, when it is time to pay, don't. They aren't thinking to get away without paying altogether, but their plan is to pay about half the agreed price. They usually do this by finding fault with the work done, then arguing about it for a while, in court if necessary, and then paying half when the judge is unable to decide on the evidence available and strongly recommends the parties to settle.
I've had it happen to me a long time ago, fortunately the sum involved was very much smaller, and worth it for the lesson I learned.
I've had it happen to me a long time ago, fortunately the sum involved was very much smaller, and worth it for the lesson I learned.
VEX said:
Sent her an email this morning giving 7 days, put read receipt and delivery receipt on it.
Nothing back, not even a delivery receipt, so I guess it is straight to a solicitors letter!
I have texted her, requesting she lets me know her new details but I doubt very much that she will reply.
Will have to wait and see.
We have used Thomas Higgins a number of times over the years, a 7 Day LBA is only a couple of quid. The ongoing case they are handling for us we used a LPD (Late Payment Demand) for the 1st time as we had no desire to deal with the customer again. This particular customer owed us £666 & ignored all form of contact, including the LPD, they then paid the original debt 2 days too late meaning we had gone for judgement, they then paid the further £240ish but again a day or 2 too late so they now have a CCJ against them & owe us a further £120ish! Didn't stop her ringing us to DEMAND we stop the action, I pointed out she had ignored us completely for over a month, he reply was she didn'tn think we were serious about taking legal action Nothing back, not even a delivery receipt, so I guess it is straight to a solicitors letter!
I have texted her, requesting she lets me know her new details but I doubt very much that she will reply.
Will have to wait and see.
Some people are f
king stupid! singlecoil said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
singlecoil said:
Doesn't matter what your T&Cs say. If you fixed it, it's hers
S.
What law are you relying on for that statement?S.
WinstonWolf said:
singlecoil said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
singlecoil said:
Doesn't matter what your T&Cs say. If you fixed it, it's hers
S.
What law are you relying on for that statement?S.
singlecoil said:
WinstonWolf said:
singlecoil said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
singlecoil said:
Doesn't matter what your T&Cs say. If you fixed it, it's hers
S.
What law are you relying on for that statement?S.
I suspect if the OP turns up to remove it he'll get paid. If not he has an aerial he can fit elsewhere and the non-payer gets shafted.
What's she going to do, take him to court?
singlecoil said:
WinstonWolf said:
singlecoil said:
WinstonWolf said:
No you couldn't.
Would you like to flesh that out a bit? From where I am sitting I see no reason why you could not.The client doesn't own an aerial until they pay. It'll never go near a court if you simply unbolt it.
singlecoil said:
WinstonWolf said:
singlecoil said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
singlecoil said:
Doesn't matter what your T&Cs say. If you fixed it, it's hers
S.
What law are you relying on for that statement?S.
Because of access issues, RoT clauses generally come into play when the buyer goes bust before paying. That's where one could actually be of some benefit to you: you fit a kitchen for someone who goes bankrupt. Their mortgagee repossesses the house and wants to sell it. Without an RoT clause you're looking at the bankrupt and whistling for your money. With one you've got the right to rip out the kitchen (which in reality is a bargaining chip to get the mortgagee to pay you out of the proceeds of sale).
Simple RoT clauses generally fall down where the thing over which title is retained is mixed and lost in the mix: eg flour, which is mixed into dough and baked into bread. You're not going to be able to enforce your RoT clause over 10kg of flour against 50 loaves of bread.
Greg66 said:
SC, I doubt your t&cs do this (for all the very obvious reasons), but if your t&cs said " price 100% payable on completion of the job. No property passes until payment has been made in full", subject to getting access there's no reason why you couldn't (in the event of non payment), remove fitted cabinets.
Because of access issues, RoT clauses generally come into play when the buyer goes bust before paying. That's where one could actually be of some benefit to you: you fit a kitchen for someone who goes bankrupt. Their mortgagee repossesses the house and wants to sell it. Without an RoT clause you're looking at the bankrupt and whistling for your money. With one you've got the right to rip out the kitchen (which in reality is a bargaining chip to get the mortgagee to pay you out of the proceeds of sale).
Simple RoT clauses generally fall down where the thing over which title is retained is mixed and lost in the mix: eg flour, which is mixed into dough and baked into bread. You're not going to be able to enforce your RoT clause over 10kg of flour against 50 loaves of bread.
Thanks for that, but I make sure I get paid 90% of the agreed price before the kitchen is delivered. Nobody has ever stiffed me for the final 10%. It's simple and straightforward, and nothing unusual in the kitchen industry although usually it's 100%.Because of access issues, RoT clauses generally come into play when the buyer goes bust before paying. That's where one could actually be of some benefit to you: you fit a kitchen for someone who goes bankrupt. Their mortgagee repossesses the house and wants to sell it. Without an RoT clause you're looking at the bankrupt and whistling for your money. With one you've got the right to rip out the kitchen (which in reality is a bargaining chip to get the mortgagee to pay you out of the proceeds of sale).
Simple RoT clauses generally fall down where the thing over which title is retained is mixed and lost in the mix: eg flour, which is mixed into dough and baked into bread. You're not going to be able to enforce your RoT clause over 10kg of flour against 50 loaves of bread.
WinstonWolf said:
The client doesn't own an aerial until they pay. It'll never go near a court if you simply unbolt it.
He certainly could go and do that, but it might well not get him the £5K. All she needs to do is to get somebody else in to replace the aerial and reconnect the plug on the equipment that she deliberately removed, pay him and the OP whistles for his money.Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff