Colin Peters wrote:
> "Claire Rand" wrote in message
> news:EbGdnZsxspbJRLjVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Colin Peters wrote:
>>> Nigel Gray, the builder in West Sus. who has achieved a lot of
>>> nationwide publicity recently through his demolishing of a non paying
>>> customers porch and conservatory, has now got a website up at
>>> www.roguecustomer.com
>>>
>>> Interestingly, he is seeking to have claims against bad debtors over
>>> construction works processed through the criminal courts rather than the
>>> civil courts.
>>>
>>> Any thought on this anyone?
>>>
>>>
>> could be a good thing after all, since the plod won't enforce it anyway,
>> and to push for a criminal action requires a higher standard of evidence.
>>
>> but it would work both ways.. e.g. a utility company overcharging but not
>> being able to refund it due to 'company policy'.
>>
>> swings and roundabouts
>
> Surely, to engage a builder and have him lay out his time, his skills and
> his finances on your behalf, and then refuse to pay him for a job well done,
> is a criminal act.
>
> Is not obtaining goods and services by deception, and then refusing to pay
> for them, a criminal act?
>
>
exactly as it should be, hence the builder doesn't have to spend his own
time and money dealing with fraud.
of course getting plod to actually do something may be hard, the cps
even harder |