Re: Builder tears down family's roof
- From: "The Todal" <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:32:49 +0100
"steve robinson" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xn0gffgps2zi8zt000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
peterwn wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:53 am, Vicko Zoomba <vicko_zoo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8267763.stm
A builder has been arrested after climbing on to the roof of a
Derbyshire family's home and partially demolishing it following a
dispute over payment.
Royden Toon, from Skegness, spent five hours tearing materials from
the Barlborough house roof until he was talked down by police.
Mr Toon claimed he was taking back his materials after homeowner James
Arthur refused to pay fully for his extension.
Mr Arthur said he held back payment until the work was done
satisfactorily.
They wouldn't pay so I went to take my materials back off the roof
Royden Toon, builder
The dispute over a £15,000 extension has been running between the two
parties for five years.
Witnesses said Mr Toon and another man climbed on to the roof of Mr
Arthur's house, off Chesterfield Road, at 0830 BST on Monday and
started pulling off tiles, ripping out insulation and breaking off
most of the wooden roof joists.
A police helicopter and several officers were called to the scene and
the area was cordoned off.
Mr Toon initially ignored police requests to come down, according to
onlookers, but climbed off the roof after being told he could be
prosecuted for criminal damage.
'Considerable negotiations'
He said: "He wouldn't pay so I went to take my materials back off the
roof.
"I gave him a letter telling him what I was going to do, he walked off
and that was it."
Mr Arthur said: "We had to terminate his contract." He added the work
had not been done satisfactorily and was six months late in
completion.
"He was on a fixed fee, of which he received just over three quarters
of the money and he hadn't got the finances to progress the works
satisfactorily."
The house was left with a hole in the roof.
Insp Dave Strong said: "We had considerable negotiations with these
gentlemen, they were taken off the property and arrested, helping us
with inquiries.
"Our main concern was the safety of the two gentlemen and ourselves."
The video on this is well worth watching. The plods charged the
builder with criminal intent to endanger life. Yet another heavey
handed, over the top reaction from the plods. The builder quite
clearly stated that he was reclaiming materials so where does the
intent to endanger life come in to it? It's time the plods connected
with reality instead of alienating themselves yet further from the
public.
The builder's act is clearly criminal. As the materials are fixed in
place they become part of the land and are owned by the owner of the
land (terms in 99 year or similar leases would no doubt lead to a
similar outcome). Romalpa clauses, etc AFAIK would be of no
assistance to the builder.
There are proper legal remedies available to the builder, where
amounts are disputed and the builder should use them. Moreover I
think in recent times the law has been strengthened to help builders
who are not paid in a timely manner or are subject to un-meritorious
workmanship, etc claims.
A criminal prosecution is just the beginning. The builder is also
likely to be sued for trespass with damages well above the cost of
reinstating the roof.
The law is a waste of time , even if the builder had won his day in court
its not
unusal for the customer to plead poverty often paying only a few pounds a
month with
the full knowledge that the goods supplied unlike in most other
transactions can not
be reclaimed if not paid for .
Ok he gets done for criminal damage so what , the court may order him to
reimburse
the customer however now the boots on the other foot.
Its about time the law was changed so that builders can reclaim thier
materials on
disputed debts
No. The builder's remedy is to sue in the County Court and persuade a judge
that the sum he is claiming (apparently, he had already received quite a lot
of money up front and this was a relatively small proportion) should be
awarded to him. Then he can send in the bailiff if it isn't paid.
Instead, the clueless idiot arrives at the property and vandalises the roof.
He is not only guilty of criminal damage, he is now liable to pay for the
cost of rectifying the damage he has done and he may lose his own home to
pay that debt. What an idiot.
If I was the householder and there was a builder on my roof removing tiles
and throwing them to the ground, I would use reasonable force to stop him
doing so. This might involve pushing him off the roof. It would be an
interesting point to argue in court later.
.
- References:
- Builder tears down family's roof
- From: Vicko Zoomba
- Re: Builder tears down family's roof
- From: peterwn
- Re: Builder tears down family's roof
- From: steve robinson
- Builder tears down family's roof
- Prev by Date: Re: Do plod make these charges up as they go along?
- Next by Date: Re: 18,000 drivers had illegal fines
- Previous by thread: Re: Builder tears down family's roof
- Next by thread: Re: Builder tears down family's roof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
