Contractor not paying up for works done

[Chicken Chaser]

On behalf of a friend this one. Friend who I shall refer to as subcontractor, is asked by the contractor to attend address and repair pipework in a premises. Boiler had been messed with by contractor employees (who were untrained) prior to arrival and drained out but left running which may have caused damage to it.
Pipework is then repaired by the subcontractor, boiler refilled and water temps all good.
Some time later, the customer fails to pay contractor full amount citing water temperature problems and thus contractor deducts same amount from subcontractor for works.

What's the legal position on this? Should the contractor pay the subby and then take it up with the customer?

Edit to add that this was a verbal agreement, long-standing relationship with contractor who requests by phone to do x y z where subby then invoices contractor for works done. Both are fairly small family businesses but the contractor has recently had a change of management and they are outstanding a number of invoices for several jobs done from several months ago running into several thousands of pounds.

Edited by Chicken Chaser on Sunday 22 January 15:07

[Mojooo]

Yes subscontractor only has a contract with the cotnractor so contractor should pay him direct.

Unless contractor has an issue with work done by subcontractor.

[SVTRick]

Well I have always walked away from any job that involved correcting and repairing work done by others into working order either above ground or below.
Unless paid for up front.

[Thermobaric]

Yup. Money up front for those types of jobs. You have no idea what the pleb before you has done.

[Chicken Chaser]

Contractor is basically saying that Subby didnt do job properly therefore theyre deducting the same amount of money, despite it working on leaving the job.

Subby in this instance, isnt wet behind the ears. 30+ years of experience, and previously an excellent relationship with contractor. Since change of hands however, contractor hasnt paid for any outstanding invoices. Theyve tried to suggest that there was an issue with HMRC (despite there not being one) and now they come up with this, even though the job was months ago.

[paintman]

Sounds like the end of a wonderful friendship.
I'd suggest your friend stops doing any further work for them, sends a statement of account with a set date for payment to be made by & bones up on letters before action and small claims court.

[roofer]

Chicken Chaser said:

Edit to add that this was a verbal agreement, long-standing relationship with contractor who requests by phone to do x y z where subby then invoices contractor for works done.

Edited by Chicken Chaser on Sunday 22 January 15:07

There are no verbal agreements that will hold up. Subby needs to get all his outstanding up to date, then do everything in writing if he still wants to work with them.

Sounds like someone who thinks he's clever has taken over and is using subbies as a loan company. Same trick the big boys do.

[SVTRick]

When I was contracting to the private sector, domestic and also sub-contract to local firms it was payment on completion and a sum up front for certain materials.
Done a few out of hours visits to remove goods to the value of as well.
Majority of works payment when invoiced none of this 30 days malarkey.
Filled a load of drains up with concrete at some posh knobs house in Cobham
as he would not pay the invoice for cutting out the previous concrete spillage.
He paid then asked for it to be removed again - got told to do one.

[Thermobaric]

Ha. Brilliant. I would have loved to have seen his face when he realized.

[Chicken Chaser]

roofer said:

Sounds like someone who thinks he's clever has taken over and is using subbies as a loan company. Same trick the big boys do.

Exactly this I believe.

Subby has no intention to use contractor for work again, and wants to finalise outstanding works and cut clean. He doesn't however, want contractor to be able to wriggle out of payment by claiming that the works were insufficient more than 3 months after that job was done. Its the first he's heard of it. I'm just asking advice on correspondence so that he can rightly claim if entitled to. My understanding is that if the contractor had issues with the payment, then he should have issued some kind of notice early on to suggest this? He's willing to go to the small claims but initially would like to test whether this contractor is simply trying to pull one (he's probably not alone on not being paid by the sounds of things).

[JM]

Chicken Chaser said:

roofer said:

Sounds like someone who thinks he's clever has taken over and is using subbies as a loan company. Same trick the big boys do.

Exactly this I believe.

Subby has no intention to use contractor for work again, and wants to finalise outstanding works and cut clean. He doesn't however, want contractor to be able to wriggle out of payment by claiming that the works were insufficient more than 3 months after that job was done. Its the first he's heard of it. I'm just asking advice on correspondence so that he can rightly claim if entitled to. My understanding is that if the contractor had issues with the payment, then he should have issued some kind of notice early on to suggest this? He's willing to go to the small claims but initially would like to test whether this contractor is simply trying to pull one (he's probably not alone on not being paid by the sounds of things).

For clarification:

Has the subby contacted the end-user to confirm whether there is a problem now (and if so when it started)?
(how long after his work did it start to fail?)

[Chicken Chaser]

JM said:

For clarification:

Has the subby contacted the end-user to confirm whether there is a problem now (and if so when it started)?
(how long after his work did it start to fail?)

No, not sure if he has contact details but is it the best way forward?

[All that jazz]

With no written contract(s) in place, the chance of your mate getting his money are slim to zero. The rest is irrelevant.